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.
Jazz vs. Smooth Jazz
- Thread starter rarbass
- Start date
Jazz vs. smooth jazz is like Sidney Bechet vs. Kenny G.
I've known people who, having only heard the latter, loathe the soprano saxophone, think of it as an abomination, nauseating, almost beneath contempt. I try and get them to listen to some Sidney Bechet to make them see the light. It's a shame when one type of music does a disservice to a different, greater body of music by discouraging people from exploring the rich history of jazz music and certain instruments.
I've known people who, having only heard the latter, loathe the soprano saxophone, think of it as an abomination, nauseating, almost beneath contempt. I try and get them to listen to some Sidney Bechet to make them see the light. It's a shame when one type of music does a disservice to a different, greater body of music by discouraging people from exploring the rich history of jazz music and certain instruments.
Well that's not really "Jazz"...is it...?
I told you about 3rd and bird because you could easily see it on tv. I told you about gelberandmanning.tv because you can easily see it on the web, on youtube.
Gelber and Manning is considered a traditional jazz group here. If you don't think it is jazz, then our conversation can't continue here, or perhaps has become too personal and should be conducted offline through PM.
Thanks for the thought-provoking debate, Bruce! See you later!
Doug
I call pre-jazz, sorry...
If that's jazz, I'm a jazz-musician as well (which i'm not, i'm 200% sure about that)
I agree with that - to me it's "retro" repertory - Jazz has a specific meaning for me as a living breathing art form now - not a copy of what was done in the 1920s or 30s.
So if a Classical Musician plays Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" that does not make him/her a Jazz musician as such - it means they are playing a repertoire which is Jazz-influenced!
A big difference!
Great to get your analysis, Bruce! Now my interest is piqued! Does this pass your jazz test?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Link Removed
Or is it too modern?
This:
Link Removed
or also too retro?
Just interested in your opinion of what I consider jazz, but turns out not to be according to jazz experts.
The band I gig with opened for New Orleans Preservation Hall Jazz Band a while back. Comments where all over the place after. Some people commented on how much they love jazz, but I couldn't help but think "that's not jazz." Others were talking about dixieland, which is a bit closer to me.
I agree that it's tough to nail "jazz" down to a specific type of music. I guess that's why some folks use terms like straight-ahead, cool, bebop, etc. It does help convey what one is referring to, but it can still leave plenty of room for interpretation.
I'm playing at a huge 3-day smooth jazz festival this summer, and it's billed as just that...SMOOTH JAZZ. Lots of definite "smooth jazz" artists will be there, such as Fourplay to name a bigger one. But the closing headliner is...Tower of Power. LOL!
I agree that it's tough to nail "jazz" down to a specific type of music. I guess that's why some folks use terms like straight-ahead, cool, bebop, etc. It does help convey what one is referring to, but it can still leave plenty of room for interpretation.
I'm playing at a huge 3-day smooth jazz festival this summer, and it's billed as just that...SMOOTH JAZZ. Lots of definite "smooth jazz" artists will be there, such as Fourplay to name a bigger one. But the closing headliner is...Tower of Power. LOL!
Just interested in your opinion of what I consider jazz, but turns out not to be according to jazz experts.
Well - as I was saying from the beginning it's all about definitions ...
That's what this thread is all about - so you consider Sade Smooth Jazz - but I can see no Jazz there at all!
I still like a lot of Sade songs - but I just don't consider it Jazz at all!
Yes.
without being looked down upon or judged by others
No.
People have a right to choose their tastes as they will. I have the right to look down on them for it.
I have a right to choose my tastes as I will. People have the right to look down on me for it.
Jazz does have its own set of sub-genres...just like Classical, Rock, R&B, etc.
Too, what is considered to be avant garde changes over time. In his day, Louis Armstrong was the avant garde of Jazz...nowadaze, no one would think that.
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....
I think you are referring to the BP mag interview/article on Stan a couple of years back. The next month he wrote a "letters" comment that he was a bit hacked off because in the BP article they misconstrued his comments about "smooth jazz". I don't remember what the BP response was but I think it started with an apology
I believe you are correct about "vertu".
- Apr 1, 2000
- 17,410
- 9,869
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Roscoe Guitars, DR Strings, Aguilar Amplification
Great to get your analysis, Bruce! Now my interest is piqued! Does this pass your jazz test?
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]
Link Removed
Or is it too modern?
This:
Link Removed
or also too retro?
Just interested in your opinion of what I consider jazz, but turns out not to be according to jazz experts.
*lightbulb moment* Wait, is this "THE" Doug Largent that played bass at NCCU back in the mid 90's?? If so that brings new humor to the comments towards you. This cat is easily one of the baddest JAZZ bassists around.
This may be true, but not all sub-genres develop in the same way. For instance, bebop developed as a movement among musicians, whereas it appears that smooth jazz developed as a selection process for airplay. Thus "smooth jazz" is a musical genre in the same sense that "top 40" is.
When I listen to music, I appreciate the technical skills of the artist along with the artistic expression. While a lot of smooth jazz consists of incessant noodling, there are many virtuosos who play it skillfully and artfully. Here's one.
bongomania
Commercial User
It seemed clear to me that he was saying those guys did play jazz, but that anyone who simply plays the same notes as them now is not playing jazz. In his view (which I don't 100% share, but I think I understand) jazz is an ever-evolving improvisational form of personal expression; whereas rehashing jazz standards is more like performing a classical repertory than "actual jazz playing".
Of course that begs the question, what if somebody uses the old stuff as a launching pad and then does the improvisational "true jazz", flying over the older changes and rhythms? What percentage of the music has to be improvised, in order for it to be called jazz?
