• 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.

Jazz vs. Smooth Jazz

#24
IMHO - similar to people argueing about all the different fractured tangents of metal, core, etc etc etc.

I always feel that these labels are put on music inside of genre's attempting to attract specific fans, but end up splintering the genre due to fans then not stepping outside of a specific tangent.

If that makes any sense.
 
#25
stflbn said:
IMHO - similar to people argueing about all the different fractured tangents of metal, core, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

No, it's not, smooth jazz is not jazz as it's missing the qualities that make jazz jazz... (tension, colour, edge, innovation,...)

It's like comparing André Rieu (dutch violinist who uses so much vibrato it makes me run to the toilet in agony) to Paganini...

but: to be honest, I associate "smooth jazz" with weather channel and elevator music, so perhaps i'm just mislabeling...
 
#26
I can't help thinking of what Frank Zappa said "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny." What is being marketed as smooth jazz has been de-odorized. It takes no risks and is not challenging to the listener. A lot of what I hear called smooth jazz can be typified as instrumental RnB or pop music. In fact some of it is so non-invasive it sounds like muzak to me. I like my jazz with angles :)

-mike
 
#29
MonetBass said:
I remember hearing that one, and it hit me immediately: "Take Five" in 4/4?? What?? That's insane.

Just as there are many different flavors of rock, there are many different flavors of jazz. Granted, a lot of what is considered smooth or contemporary jazz would not be considered jazz by a purist, but that music has jazz influences and elements. Heck, even Russ Freeman (Rippingtons) has said "We're not a jazz group, we're an instrumental rock group", but they're still lumped into the jazz category.

In reality it's just a label that the music industry insists on putting on the music to help the average consumer, which, clearly, we bassists on this site are NOT. IMO there is a fine line between jazz fusion and progressive/art rock, and I tend to categorize (if I HAVE to) music by the artist and what the intention is of the music itself. In the end, call it what you like, as long as it's good music and you enjoy it. :cool:
Click to expand...

I have heard "Take Five" done in 4 and I think it sounds cool. There are all kinds of artists that do that to their own tunes.

The rest of the post is pretty good.
 
#33
I have a question for the Jazz "purists". It is always said, (and rightly so), that jazz does not get the amount of publicity and air play it deserves.

So, would you like to hear it played on all elevators, supermarkets and shopping malls etc ??

No "if's", "but's" or "maybe's"... just Yes or No.
 
#34
DesertCreature said:
Smooth jazz (some of which I like) has never had a real art following and its losing its commercial niche as the elevator music of choice. Now 70's and 80's pop is moving into that role. So its really a loser for potential gigs, IME.
Click to expand...
My perspective has been different. I can name a few successful smooth jazz festivals that sell thousands of tickets each with people traveling from all over the world to attend. It's definitely a niche market, but so is jazz for that matter.
 
#35
I think the big difference is that "smooth jazz" makes more money than trad., bop, avant garde, fusion or straight ahead styles. I don't think it is a "challenge" or a lazy players issue either eg.. Stanley and Nathan (as we all know) are killers that have added to their cash pile by playing "smooth". In comparison it may be boring but someone is writing checks for it.
 
#36
I heard from magazine interviews that Stanley Clarke dislikes the term smooth Jazz and he formed Vertu to show that Jazz fusion can be challenging and raucous rather than "radio-friendly" and Jeff Berlin's album "Lumpy Jazz" is clearly meant to be the opposite of Smooth....;)
 
#39
Yup - it's a question of : are you producing real music or just background wallpaper?

So it's the difference between a work of Art, like a great painting that is put up for appreciation/study in a gallery, or a mass-produced item of wall-covering that you buy from a store, stick on your wall and forget about...:eyebrow:
 
#40
Bruce Lindfield said:
Yup - it's a question of : are you producing real music or just background wallpaper?

So it's the difference between a work of Art, like a great painting that is put up for appreciation/study in a gallery, or a mass-produced item of wall-covering that you buy from a store, stick on your wall and forget about...:eyebrow:
Click to expand...

"Real" music means different things to different people. Maybe this "mass produced wall covering" music brings precious memories of association ( first child, first love etc ) flooding back to people. This is just as "real" to these people as "work of art" or "on the edge", "challanging" etc music is to others.

I detect a lot of snobbery in this thread. :hiding:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back