• 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?

#81
colcifer said:
Jazz makes you think.
Click to expand...

Jack Clark said:
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. :p)

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 . . . .
Click to expand...

The big point is that Psycho is from Belgium and as I have mentioned before - Smooth Jazz, just has had no impact in Europe - what is it - it doesn't exist !!?? :confused:

So if you ask a Parisian about Jazz they know what you mean - "smooth" has no meaning in any language except American!! :p

I only really know about it from discussions around here and am horrified that Stanley and Chic are mentioned in the same breath...:eek:

I go to my local Jazz club each week and people have no problem with knowing what Jazz is - they listen to it all the time and hear great bands improvising, being spontaneous and reacting to each other on the bandstand!

There is nowhere in my home town to hear "Smooth Jazz" and it is never mentioned ...:eyebrow:

I would like to ask people like Ed or Jack about what you make of things like "The Sidewinder" or Herbie's "Cantaloupe Island" - tunes where the rhythm section are grooving and are entirely predictable...?

So - I have never doubted this is Jazz, but do we have to go back and re-define some of those grooving tunes fron the 60s...?
 
#82
Sam Sherry said:
As my wife, Kathy, notes, "People can like music you don't, you know."
Click to expand...

There are a few people in the thread pointing this out and it made me think.

So I really like Beethoven's music - it is exciting, when played by the best musicians, totally original and very interesting.

However, I find Brahms' music very dull and every time I hear it, I can't help thinking that it is a pale imitation of all that Beethoven did...:hmm:

It is very annoying when people say - oh you must like Brahms because you like Beethoven, what about this ... :mad:

So maybe the strength of feeling here is because people who play Jazz, see smooth as a "pale imitation" of what they love...?
 
#84
I'm just guessing as it doesn't really happen here and it seems strange to me, to think of Stanley Clarke as "smooth"...?

So I did buy his "Vertu" album and I remember reading that he saw it as the opposite of "smooth" and I wondered why - I didn't really like the guitar playing on the album, although I loved the bass playing and a lot else...?
 
#86
Paul Warburton said:
Would smooth jazz have developed/happened without amplification for keyboards and basses? In other words, with conventional pianos and double basses? Without that volume?
If so, in what way?
Click to expand...


Well...that was part of my earlier question - so are "the Sidewinder" and Herbie's Canatloupe Island, examples of "Acoustic Smooth...." ...:eyebrow:

A lot of non-Jazz lovers, do actually like "Kind of Blue" as it offers no shocks or sudden changes of volume/dissonance that can upset the "sensitive".....:eyebrow:

Basically - anything that can sit easily in the background could fit in with 'smooth' programming for radio - much like background "cocktail music"....?

I like music that surprises me with its originality and musical ideas - and get annoyed when people tell me that Jazz is really just a subset of "Easy Listening"! :hmm:

At that point in the conversation, I feel compelled to say that I prefer "difficult listening" - as an antidote!! ;)
 
#87
fingers said:
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.
Click to expand...

No man Jazz is Swingin for a large 70 percent chunk of it. It cant be denied. Smooth Jazz is not Swangin like Oscar Peterson or Count Basie. Most Smooth Jazz that Swings does so in a programmed bullpoop way. The difference between Jazz and Smooth Jazz, Kenny G and Boney James are not Jazz. Miles Davis (All of his catalog,) Oscar Peterson, Charlie Haden Dexter Gordon Art Blakey, thats Jazz. Grover Washington is really Instrumental R&B. I hate to put him in the same boat as Kenny Pee.
 
#88
Everyone knows what "Jazz" is (Miles, Coltrane, Byrd) Super talented cats. Todays Jazz doesn't sound much different from the classics. Smooth Jazz (which is JAZZ and used to be called Contemporary Jazz) is a combination of Jazz, R&B and fusion (FourPlay, Rippingtons, Norman Brown). These are some of the most talented musician's you will find anywhere. Of course depending on the artist you can have varying amounts of the 3 components. Whatever your preference ( I like them both but Smooth Jazz is my favorite) both are JAZZ and are performed by some of the best musicians in the world.
 
#89
I think the tradition of "Player X with strings" was an early acoustic attempt to bring the smoove.

There's a lot of jazz that people can use as background music if they are not paying attention--kind of blue being a good example. I don't think anyone would call that "smooth jazz" because there's so much exploration going on. It was pretty avante garde for its day: the solos on it are still fresh today. People deride Bill Evans as "background music" and if you are an ignorant and insensitive oaf, you can chatter away in the background. But close listening rewards the listener with more and more depth. Close listening to smoove jazz just leads me to say "nice chops" and wonder how they got that guitar tone. Yawn.

I think a lot of it is what Paul said--it was made mostly by and for Studio guys, it's all about the sheen of production. It's like an airport novel--passes the weary hours, does not reward deep attention
 
#91
I guess, in the end, it's about the emotion thang. I would hope that any art would get an emotional response from the person looking/hearing in. Bill Evans' and Miles' playing can sometimes almost make me feel embarrassed for them, in their ability to expose their most intimate feelings through the music.
Smooth jazz doesn't spark any kind of emotion in me.
I can't listen to my favorite players at home without at least devoting a couple of hours to each. I've actually become almost physically and emotionally impaired after a long listening session. Like, riveted to where I sit.
 
#93
Ah, the funky boogaloo. well you tell me Bruce. Transcribe a Kenny G solo and transcribe JoHen's solo off SIDEWINDER, tell me how much they have in common.

Was it Dorothy Parker's quote - "There's no there, there."
 
#94
T-MOST said:
Everyone knows what "Jazz" is (Miles, Coltrane, Byrd) Super talented cats. Todays Jazz doesn't sound much different from the classics.
Click to expand...

I don't many guys would admit to knowing what jazz is.
I also don't think that anyone currently out there playing original creative music would enjoy being told that they don't sound much different from the classics. Obviously you haven't heard too much modern jazz music. Darcy James Argue and Maria Schnieder don't sound like Basie and Duke. Also check out people like JD Allen, Vijay Iyer, Jim Black, John Hollenbeck, Drew Gress, Henry Threadgill, Evan Parker, FLY, tyshawn sorrey, steve lehman, wayne krantz, john zorn, henry hey. They don't sound like the "classics" to me but I'd still call them all jazz musicians.



btw, Stanley has been getting really smooth lately...
 
#95
If I were going to differentiate, I'd say that Smooth Jazz comes out of the R and B and Funk instrumental tradition in terms of harmony, feel, etc. It has more in common with Marvin Gaye than Charlie Parker or John Coltrane.
However, if it's the "gateway drug" that leads players and listeners to the Hard Stuff then I'm cool with that.
"It's Boney James-try it-the first one's always free....";)
 
#96
There's a marketing category called "smooth jazz." We've all heard it. There's a marketing category called "jazz." We've all heard it. It seems perfectly reasonable to assume there is no hard and fast line around either of these categories, just like there's no hard and fast line or border around any genre. Good music can be found in all genres, so can bad etc etc.

The OP wanted to find a way to define "smooth jazz." I know it when I hear it, so if I know it, it ought to be possible to describe the "it."

Not adventurous, decorative, no emotional force, overproduced--that's getting pretty close
 
#97
"Real" jazz has an edge, "smooth" jazz, by definition, does not.

Real jazz was made as an emotional expression. Smooth jazz is someone making a popular record.

Smooth jazz is made to be something that people like. Real jazz is made without any consideration of if the audience "gets it" or not--if they don't, that's their problem. With smooth jazz, you want everyone to like it and to like you.

Think of the difference between Jackson Pollock and Thomas Kinkade. They both can paint (and sell). But I've never seen a Kinkade that evokes any more emotion than "that's pretty".
 
#98
Ed Fuqua said:
Ah, the funky boogaloo. well you tell me Bruce. Transcribe a Kenny G solo and transcribe JoHen's solo off SIDEWINDER, tell me how much they have in common.

Was it Dorothy Parker's quote - "There's no there, there."
Click to expand...

I agree with you - I love the Sidewinder and play the Lee Morgan CD quite often - but we were trying to define what makes Jazz, Jazz and you were saying that the band should be interacting and the OP was talking about predictability.

So in tunes like the Sidewinder and a lot of "groove-based" Jazz ( I could have named many others, but people wouldn't have heard of them) is that the rhythm section are predictable and don't necessarily react or interact...?

But I still know it's Jazz and it's great! :)
 
#100
I don't really want to try and define either, but music I like always shares certain qualities. The musicians are obviously searching for something, experimenting, playing on the edge of what they're capable of, and fearless. And it feels good. Stuff like Oscar Peterson w/ Ray Brown will ALWAYS FEEL BETTER than any "groove" **** on the weather channel. And I just genuinely prefer acoustic music. I have no problem with the slab or electric instruments in general, but for my taste I'll always take acoustic instruments. And what a lot of people so far have referred to as "smooth jazz" is primarily NOT acoustic (Feel free to show me examples that disprove that). I like my jazz to be urgent, soul-baring music. And that doesn't necessarily mean fast and outside. Miles' ballad playing is some of the most intense **** I've ever heard. That level of depth is just absent from a lot of the music being discussed. My $0.02.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back