"Smooth Jazzers" and "Unsmooth Jazzers." Now we're beginning to sound like Dr. Seuss's sneetches.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Jazz vs. "smooth jazz"? How to articulate the difference?
- Thread starter Jack Clark
- Start date
Well, it's pretty clear to me. One is smooth an the other, ain't.
Predictabillity is a good word. I'd add DISCOVERY. Whenever I listen to "unsmooth" jazzers play, it sounds like it's the first time they're playing the tune, like they're just meeting it, like they're discovering a whole new world of possibilities, even if they're playing autumn leaves yet again.
Like Mr. F said: if you already know how's it going to go down... well...
Now, about that rap thing. I think the word jazz has to do with more than just music, maybe that's why it's so hard to describe. To me, it has to do with spontaneous creation and free spirit. Under that definition, some rap may be considered jazz and some jazz may be considered... well, someting else.
Predictabillity is a good word. I'd add DISCOVERY. Whenever I listen to "unsmooth" jazzers play, it sounds like it's the first time they're playing the tune, like they're just meeting it, like they're discovering a whole new world of possibilities, even if they're playing autumn leaves yet again.
Like Mr. F said: if you already know how's it going to go down... well...
Now, about that rap thing. I think the word jazz has to do with more than just music, maybe that's why it's so hard to describe. To me, it has to do with spontaneous creation and free spirit. Under that definition, some rap may be considered jazz and some jazz may be considered... well, someting else.
Hello, PsychoScout-
As I mentioned, my wife's word was "predictability." She feels that smooth jazz is more "predictable," and she likes that about it. (But I really like Jazzdog's father's "noodling" description, too.
)
My wife likes Jazz, but not as much as smooth jazz because she sometimes feels as if it's "not going anywhere," especially during some solos.
I think I know what she means there. My favorite type of solo is one that goes out there into the twilight zone, or into another world even, but where the soloist reaches back every once in a while and weaves in a couple of melody notes from the head that are characteristic of the tune--especially when he/she places them where they would be as originally written--for example, the Ab and C in the 30th bar of "Misty" (as written in Eb for C instruments). That makes me smile. It lets me know the soloist really is in touch with the melody, and I like that. My wife doesn't hear this, for some reason, and she doesn't believe I do, either. But it isn't hard at all if you're keeping count with the measures.
I'm sure I'm displaying a lack of sophistication here, but that's all the farther I am now, so . . . .
As I mentioned, my wife's word was "predictability." She feels that smooth jazz is more "predictable," and she likes that about it. (But I really like Jazzdog's father's "noodling" description, too.
)My wife likes Jazz, but not as much as smooth jazz because she sometimes feels as if it's "not going anywhere," especially during some solos.
I think I know what she means there. My favorite type of solo is one that goes out there into the twilight zone, or into another world even, but where the soloist reaches back every once in a while and weaves in a couple of melody notes from the head that are characteristic of the tune--especially when he/she places them where they would be as originally written--for example, the Ab and C in the 30th bar of "Misty" (as written in Eb for C instruments). That makes me smile. It lets me know the soloist really is in touch with the melody, and I like that. My wife doesn't hear this, for some reason, and she doesn't believe I do, either. But it isn't hard at all if you're keeping count with the measures.
I'm sure I'm displaying a lack of sophistication here, but that's all the farther I am now, so . . . .
hmz, bebop is rather predictable, but it ain't smooth....
in my perception it's the elevator jazz that's going nowhere, it keeps fluttering out there (will someone please give me some tension and a resolution now, pretty please)
in my perception it's the elevator jazz that's going nowhere, it keeps fluttering out there (will someone please give me some tension and a resolution now, pretty please)
What's the difference between jazz and smooth jazz? It's the same as the difference between a bull and a steer. 
Jake deVilliers
Commercial User
- May 24, 2006
- 6,349
- 607
- Disclosures
- Owner of The Bass Spa, String Repairman at Long & McQuade Vancouver
That's the crux of the biscuit right there Scout. Smooth 'jazz' or smooth 'rock' or smooth 'bluegrass' or smooth 'classical' is devoid of emotion - it doesn't make me feel anything...
I've slung some crap at smooth jazz here in this thread, and a lot of it still sounds to me like it's tracks waiting for the vocal to be added. But there's another side to it that occurred to me after having thought about it a bit.
I've spent a fair amount of time playing with people who are pretty firmly entrenched in the "smooth jazz" world. Two that spring to mind are David Benoit and Tom Scott. Both have made good livings playing music that is pretty close to the smooth end of things; maybe they're even guys that helped form and define the genre. But when I've played with them, they've seemed to be anxious to leave that behind, and get into more improvisational realms, and they are both very capable in that regard. Both have performed "jazz" at a very high level when I've played with them.
George Benson has recorded some of the "smoothest" music in history.... some of the vocal stuff is probably pure pop music, rather than "jazz" by any stretch. Every time I've played with him, that music was nowhere in sight. He might play "Breezin" because crowds expect it, but then he proceeds to deconstruct it like only he can. Whatever he plays live, he generally tears it up.
So maybe I'm still sometimes a little too quick to slap labels on things before I hear it. If I'm going to be an advocate of blurring musical lines, I suppose I should be willing to do so in all directions.
Oh, and by the way.... I'm also fully aware that none of the aforementioned artists give a rat's a$$ what I think about their music. Nor should they.... I'm just happy they want to let me play with them!
I've spent a fair amount of time playing with people who are pretty firmly entrenched in the "smooth jazz" world. Two that spring to mind are David Benoit and Tom Scott. Both have made good livings playing music that is pretty close to the smooth end of things; maybe they're even guys that helped form and define the genre. But when I've played with them, they've seemed to be anxious to leave that behind, and get into more improvisational realms, and they are both very capable in that regard. Both have performed "jazz" at a very high level when I've played with them.
George Benson has recorded some of the "smoothest" music in history.... some of the vocal stuff is probably pure pop music, rather than "jazz" by any stretch. Every time I've played with him, that music was nowhere in sight. He might play "Breezin" because crowds expect it, but then he proceeds to deconstruct it like only he can. Whatever he plays live, he generally tears it up.
So maybe I'm still sometimes a little too quick to slap labels on things before I hear it. If I'm going to be an advocate of blurring musical lines, I suppose I should be willing to do so in all directions.
Oh, and by the way.... I'm also fully aware that none of the aforementioned artists give a rat's a$$ what I think about their music. Nor should they.... I'm just happy they want to let me play with them!
I'm still trying to find out what is JAZZ. Smooth or other wise. I hear talk from people in the jazz world about what is jazz and what it's not. Is there a written rule book to define what is jazz in it's self. Some people tell me Benny Goodman was jazz, get real. Jazz is what it is to the listener, smooth or otherwise. Just remember it comes from the Blues.
That's why it's pointless to try, my Fellow Cheesehead. You could spend the rest of your life trying to find the address of the jazz world, before you would even get around to trying to define what jazz is.
This discussion has been going on for a long time... people talked about it in Down Beat when I was a kid growing up in Minocqua, Wisconsin. For me, the "jazz world" was external for the most part. Records and radio, and playing with my dad at an early age. It gradually expanded to the point where I was lucky enough to perform with a lot of the people I'd read about and listened to. When I got out into the larger world as a bassist, it did so even more.
I'm sure there are books and articles about what jazz is. All of them are true, and none of them are true. Some of what I consider jazz does not come from the blues to my ears, as is evidenced in the work of a lot of the great European jazz musicians that helped to form parts of my sound. i think Benny Goodman was a jazz musician as well.
But it doesn't matter; that's just my book. Yours will surely read differently. It's not surprising when you discover that very few "jazz" musicians use the term in describing their life's work.
+1 re Benny Goodman, esp. "China Boy."
Well, thanks to this discussion (and to my wife) the next time I have one of these smooth jazz conversations with someone it'll probably go something like this:
Other guy: "Why do you like jazz, but not smooth jazz?"
Me: "It's predictable. And a bit too noodley for me."
Well, thanks to this discussion (and to my wife) the next time I have one of these smooth jazz conversations with someone it'll probably go something like this:
Other guy: "Why do you like jazz, but not smooth jazz?"
Me: "It's predictable. And a bit too noodley for me."
its kinda like "what is r&b?", the good stuff from the 50's and 60's or the horrid music these days called r&b.
I got into jazz because of playing bass, so I went out and bought stanley clarke first because his last name was clark like mine, and because he looked cool with his white jacket, shirt unbuttoned, smoking a little cigar and bass necklace on that "I wanna play for you" albumn, thought that was more exciting than the jaco black and white picture.
But when I listened to David Sanborn, that was music I could ride around in my rust bucket car and pretend that i was a suave dude, and besides, you can't play "Vulcan princess" 70's fusion on a date, that would have gotten me nowhere...
Now I've married a long time, been getting into classic jazz via Marcus, then Miles, then everything else. My wife would still rather listen to smooth jazz, but I made her watch a Thelonious Monk video anyway....
If you listen to Sirius radio, the smooth jazz station vs the real jazz station, I think it is easier to hear the difference than try to explain it, though if I had to I would use pop/r&b in my description. But sometimes a good song gets thru in spite of the formula....
But when I listened to David Sanborn, that was music I could ride around in my rust bucket car and pretend that i was a suave dude, and besides, you can't play "Vulcan princess" 70's fusion on a date, that would have gotten me nowhere...
Now I've married a long time, been getting into classic jazz via Marcus, then Miles, then everything else. My wife would still rather listen to smooth jazz, but I made her watch a Thelonious Monk video anyway....
If you listen to Sirius radio, the smooth jazz station vs the real jazz station, I think it is easier to hear the difference than try to explain it, though if I had to I would use pop/r&b in my description. But sometimes a good song gets thru in spite of the formula....
Sir, your wisdom is only surpassed by your wit!
I know you have rubbed shoulders with a few smoothers. However as I said earlier many of these guys can really play just about anything. Dave, Phil's brother was a complete Bill Evans freak in his formative years. I know this because our paths crossed more than a few times in the 70's. I also heard Tom Scott play some very bop stuff when he was not in the L.A. Express. I think for these guys, they were finding a way to be successful working musicians.
Jazzdogg
Less barking, more wagging!
One more word springs to mind when I think of smooth jazz: overproduced.
There have too many legit jazz musicians to mention who have succumbed to pressure from studios to add strings and otherwise overproduce their recorded music; overproduction / sterilization / homogenization aren't new, and didn't start with Kenny G.
I can think of several extraordinary musicians who've succumbed to temptation to overproduce their work; perhaps overproduction is endemic to certain personality types; perhaps overproduction is seen as a marketing imperative. Whatever the reasons, overproduction is neither new, nor likely to go away any time soon.
There have too many legit jazz musicians to mention who have succumbed to pressure from studios to add strings and otherwise overproduce their recorded music; overproduction / sterilization / homogenization aren't new, and didn't start with Kenny G.
I can think of several extraordinary musicians who've succumbed to temptation to overproduce their work; perhaps overproduction is endemic to certain personality types; perhaps overproduction is seen as a marketing imperative. Whatever the reasons, overproduction is neither new, nor likely to go away any time soon.
I'm going to throw my 1 cent (recession - sorry) in here as someone who first got into any jazz because of so-called "smooth jazz".
When I first got into music, I was first drawn to funk (Parliament, Chic) and good R&B (Earth, Wind & Fire, Stevie Wonder). At some point, however, it felt like much of the music was missing something - it seemed like more life was needed, more energy, more something. Then, one day, I heard Earl Klugh on an R&B station's jazz show. I was amazed. (Now, I had previously heard some hard bop, but at the time, I couldn't make any sense of it - it just sounded too random.) From Klugh I got into David Sanborn, over to Ronnie Laws, on to Bob James, Spyro Gyra, Jeff Lorber Fusion, Lee Ritenour, Larry Carlton, David Benoit, Joe Sample, Yellowjackets and The Rippingtons. During this whole time, I dipped toes into the "real jazz"(?) world as well. I dove into Weather Report, Ahmad Jamal , Miles, Don Cherry, Branford Marsalis, Renee Rosnes, and eventually wound up at my favorite musician, Pat Metheny.
The thing I find odd about the current "smooth jazz" is that, to me, the edge that most of the above musicians had/have, isn't even present. On my local smooth jazz station, which just died off (I found it pretty unlistenable anyway - no one should ever hear Sade more than once every two months, much less every hour), none of the above musicians even are part of the rotation. It seems like today's smooth jazz is, as Jack Clark posted earlier, predictable - no note should even remotely be out of place, as if our ears are too fragile to take it. When the music is so predictable that even the slight edges of an Earl Klugh and Larry Carlton are too harsh for airplay, then something is seriously wrong. The sad thing is, I know (as Marcus Johnson posted earlier) that many (if not most) of the so-called smooth jazz artists can really play anything they like, but today's smooth jazz is what is profitable.
Anyway, I wrote all that to say that, while today's "smooth jazz" is as predictable as sunrise, it sure as heck wasn't the case in the beginning of the genre. And I miss what it used to be. :scowl:
When I first got into music, I was first drawn to funk (Parliament, Chic) and good R&B (Earth, Wind & Fire, Stevie Wonder). At some point, however, it felt like much of the music was missing something - it seemed like more life was needed, more energy, more something. Then, one day, I heard Earl Klugh on an R&B station's jazz show. I was amazed. (Now, I had previously heard some hard bop, but at the time, I couldn't make any sense of it - it just sounded too random.) From Klugh I got into David Sanborn, over to Ronnie Laws, on to Bob James, Spyro Gyra, Jeff Lorber Fusion, Lee Ritenour, Larry Carlton, David Benoit, Joe Sample, Yellowjackets and The Rippingtons. During this whole time, I dipped toes into the "real jazz"(?) world as well. I dove into Weather Report, Ahmad Jamal , Miles, Don Cherry, Branford Marsalis, Renee Rosnes, and eventually wound up at my favorite musician, Pat Metheny.
The thing I find odd about the current "smooth jazz" is that, to me, the edge that most of the above musicians had/have, isn't even present. On my local smooth jazz station, which just died off (I found it pretty unlistenable anyway - no one should ever hear Sade more than once every two months, much less every hour), none of the above musicians even are part of the rotation. It seems like today's smooth jazz is, as Jack Clark posted earlier, predictable - no note should even remotely be out of place, as if our ears are too fragile to take it. When the music is so predictable that even the slight edges of an Earl Klugh and Larry Carlton are too harsh for airplay, then something is seriously wrong. The sad thing is, I know (as Marcus Johnson posted earlier) that many (if not most) of the so-called smooth jazz artists can really play anything they like, but today's smooth jazz is what is profitable.
Anyway, I wrote all that to say that, while today's "smooth jazz" is as predictable as sunrise, it sure as heck wasn't the case in the beginning of the genre. And I miss what it used to be. :scowl:
I don't know why so many posters have remarked about smooth jazz lacking edge, as if that is a surprise. What part of the word smooth has been failing to make the translation? I mean really, isn't that the whole point of the name? To my ears smooth jazz is kind of like your very own musical version of a Stepford Wife.
Seems to me that there are knowledgeable, interesting and talented musicians everywhere I go and in all genres of music. Although I don't listen to a lot of smooth jazz, I agree that there are some fine players involved in it.
Seems to me that there are knowledgeable, interesting and talented musicians everywhere I go and in all genres of music. Although I don't listen to a lot of smooth jazz, I agree that there are some fine players involved in it.
