Double Bass Jazz vs. "smooth jazz"? How to articulate the difference?

[Jack Clark]

My wife is a classically-trained amateur pianist and flautist. She likes something she refers to as "smooth jazz," which to me sounds like elevator music. And I'm friends with a long-standing Jazz Department Head who insists that "smooth jazz" is not Jazz at all.

Well, I certainly agree with him, but for me "smooth jazz" is like obscenity--"I know it when I [hear] it" (Justice Potter Stewart, 1964), but I can't articulate the difference between it and what I think of as Jazz.

So, my wife and I have been trying to come up with a way to describe that difference to people who don't know either Jazz or smooth jazz. So far, we've settled on one word only--and I'd like to withhold that word for a while so as not to influence you folks, to whom we are now putting the question:

If you were speaking to someone who did not know either one, how would you articulate the difference between Jazz and "smooth jazz"?

 

[Treyzer]

I think this little snippet might help you determine the difference.
Think of real jazz as "shinola" The link below says it best!

 

[Marcus Johnson]

Jazz is great, smooth jazz is not.

 

[eggfan]

swing

 

[Marc Piane]

swing

I don't think swing has anything to do with it. Lots of newer jazz doesn't swing in the traditional sense and lots of smooth jazz swings in the shuffle funk sort of way.

I really think it has more to do with the roots of the music. Lots of smooth stuff to me comes out of a more r&b kind of lineage.

 

[kb9wyz]

Jazz is built on great rhythms and employs interesting harmonic structure. "Smooth jazz" has about as much rhythm as a limp fish and gets its harmonic structure from 3rd grade recorder lessons.

 

[bucephylus]

First of all, there has been and will be an on-going argument about just what "Jazz" is and isn't.

I personally don't care for some of the pasteurized homogenized Vitamin D aspect of the new smooth jazz material, but at the same time recognize that musicians have to make a living, and like the line in The Right Stuff goes, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Fact is there is a market for Smooth Jazz. So, it is what it is.

I also have other personal gripes about what others consider "Real" jazz - specifically the codification of the Bop format to the point where it is becoming almost classical in nature. But, that's kind of OT.

Seems to me an important critical element that has largely disappeared since Miles' passing is to bring something new and original to the game. I don't hear much of that anymore, aside from a few struggling groups bravely trying to set new paths in the face of a relative lack of support from venues and the public; which is the real issue. The public is currently kind of unhip to new forms, club owners are generally ignorant and unsupportive, and many musicians are just trying to get by.

Tough times; but better to put your efforts towards making new stuff than waste time bellyaching about something you can't do anything about.

IMHO

 

[PB+J]

Some smooth jazz swings, some smooth jazz is complex, but I generally detest it even so. I should like it more than, say, Beyonce or Lil Wayne, but oddly, I like both of them more than I like smooth jazz.

What's missing--it's decorative. It's not supposed to really get under your skin in any way. Maybe make you tap your foot a little. It's pretty, and it sounds like a lot of studio time has gone into giving it a creepy sheen, like clear plastic slipcovers. It's like a guy who dresses really really well in expensive clothes and is constantly afraid of getting his sharp suit wrinkled or dirty. It's afraid of trying, and it tries to make a virtue out of narcissistic detachment.

I wish I could articulate it better. It's like a really strong urge to get a large hammer and destroy whatever appliance is playing smooth jazz, as quickly as possible.

 

[PB+J]

First of all, there has been and will be an on-going argument about just what "Jazz" is and isn't.

I personally don't care for some of the pasteurized homogenized Vitamin D aspect of the new smooth jazz material, but at the same time recognize that musicians have to make a living, and like the line in The Right Stuff goes, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers." Fact is there is a market for Smooth Jazz. So, it is what it is.

I also have other personal gripes about what others consider "Real" jazz - specifically the codification of the Bop format to the point where it is becoming almost classical in nature. But, that's kind of OT.

Seems to me an important critical element that has largely disappeared since Miles' passing is to bring something new and original to the game. I don't hear much of that anymore, aside from a few struggling groups bravely trying to set new paths in the face of a relative lack of support from venues and the public; which is the real issue. The public is currently kind of unhip to new forms, club owners are generally ignorant and unsupportive, and many musicians are just trying to get by.

Tough times; but better to put your efforts towards making new stuff than waste time bellyaching about something you can't do anything about.

IMHO

Good points all

 

[Marc Piane]

I think smooth jazz is just as hard to define as jazz.

I can't believe I'm defending it 'cause I don't listen to any of the guys below but which of the below would you consider smooth jazz?

 

[PB+J]

Purely subjective answers

Yellowjackets--smooth jazz, make it stop
Marcus Miller-- R+B, but not great R+B. Marcus is a STRONG player
Chick--Not smooth, but Pattituci looks bored and I was too
Stanley--Smooth, and lame.


Not sure why I feel that way, but no doubt in my mind

 

[Marc Piane]

but chalk full of great players, interesting chord progressions, and complex rhythms.

 

[LawDaddy]

I think smooth jazz is a radio programming format, not a musical genre. I <gulp> listen to the local smooth jazz station during the day, and they play a wide variety of genres, but they all fit under that mellow mood umbrella of smooth jazz.

 

[Treyzer]

I think smooth jazz is just as hard to define as jazz.

I can't believe I'm defending it 'cause I don't listen to any of the guys below but which of the below would you consider smooth jazz?

These guys are all great players period whatever the genre. My pal Mike Thompson (serious L.A. session player) was just doing tracks with Jimmy Haslip and Jeff Lorber. Those guys can play period. I played with Larry Carlton for a brief stint and he is a certified monster; period Marcus Miller's sense of groove is very deep and John Patitucci is a monster on both double bass and the 6 string bass. There is only one Stanley Clarke. he has carved out a niche for himself. I love bop and post bop lot's more than this kind of music BUT, these guys are some of the best professional players on the scene today. If you don't dig this stuff that's cool but all these guys are money, and in the music business, they are all very highly respected for what they bring to the table!

 

[azureblue]

I was playing a lot of jazz at the time, then she said, "Oh, I Love Kenny G!" and that was that.......... A man has to stick with his principles, you know.

Smooth jazz is what happened when all those half ass 70's & 80's era fusion players found out they could make money playing wallpaper music.

 

[Marc Piane]

These guys are all great players period whatever the genre. My pal Mike Thompson (serious L.A. session player) was just doing tracks with Jimmy Haslip and Jeff Lorber. Those guys can play period. I played with Larry Carlton for a brief stint and he is a certified monster; period Marcus Miller's sense of groove is very deep and John Patitucci is a monster on both double bass and the 6 string bass. There is only one Stanley Clarke. he has carved out a niche for himself. I love bop and post bop lot's more than this kind of music BUT, these guys are some of the best professional players on the scene today. If you don't dig this stuff that's cool but all these guys are money, and in the music business, they are all very highly respected for what they bring to the table!

Well said. 'Smooth jazz' stirs up some pretty strange feelings among the jazz faithful. I'm as guilty as anyone. None of the clips I posted are even close to my taste and most I'd haphazardly lop into the 'smooth jazz' category. But there is no question in my mind upon deeper listening that this is expertly composed, masterfully played music. My point... It's cool if it is not your cuppa, talking it down doesn't help anyone though.

 

[PB+J]

Sure it does. It's how we learn to develop tastes and likes. "All music is great music" is kind of simple-minded, isn't it? Saying "if it's made by technically proficient players who make a good living, it's great music" seems kind of empty too, at least to me. "Talking it down" is a way of developing an aesthetic sensibility.

I would not begrudge anyone their choices. Sure, Jimmy Haslip is a technically proficient and highly skilled player. I've never found anything he's played at all moving or effecting, which is why he ends up in the Smooth category for me. Others might find him exciting and enjoyable--he clearly makes a good living, and good for him.

I can recognize that it takes a lot of skill to do something, and still not like it.

 

[bikeplate]

HI

Should probobly be called mainstream jazz. The purists dont like it, of course. Purists, no matter in what field, dont like anything but what they do or are into. LOL. Goes for music, sports, etc.


Know how to make a jazz musician a millionaire?

Give him or her 2 million and put them on tour for a year. LOL

Pretty much sums up why these musicians record "smooth Jazz"

Rob

 

[colcifer]

Jazz makes you think.

 

[Marc Piane]

I can recognize that it takes a lot of skill to do something, and still not like it.

. My point... It's cool if it is not your cuppa, talking it down doesn't help anyone though.

Not my cuppa. Ain't gonna say nuthin negative tho. Like my momma used to say "if you got nuthin nice to say don't say anything"

...Oh and I've heard Chicago smooth jazz cats refer to it as 'straight ahead'