• 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

#101
All this talk of "this is/not jazz", "that is/not" jazz.

Guys, could you please tell me, apart from having a rough idea of where to look when in a music store or buying an album online, etc... what difference does it make what it is called :confused: It's all music, is it not ?

Just curious, that's all. :)
 
#102
fearceol said:
All this talk of "this is/not jazz", "that is/not" jazz.

Guys, could you please tell me, apart from having a rough idea of where to look when in a music store or buying an album online, etc... what difference does it make what it is called :confused: It's all music, is it not ?

Just curious, that's all. :)
Click to expand...

Well I had started it only with the curiosity of why Smooth Jazz is not considered Jazz at all. I mean it has Jazz right in its name, why would it not be Jazz? I believe it's a subgenre of jazz.
But I don't have the expertise to be referring to specific artists in either genre, so I figured it was best left to others to discuss.
 
#103
Honestly, I think it's because the name "jazz" has deep cultural meaning for some people, whereas for others it is just a word. To complicate matters, the people for whom it has more meaning do not all interpret it with the same deep cultural meaning(s).
 
#104
I see....well to me, Jazz is Jazz, and Smooth Jazz is a different kind of Jazz. Perhaps the "smooth" could indicate that it does not have all the spontaneity and improvisational elements that other Jazz has.
 
#105
rarisgod said:
Well I had started it only with the curiosity of why Smooth Jazz is not considered Jazz at all. I mean it has Jazz right in its name, why would it not be Jazz? I believe it's a sub genre of jazz.
But I don't have the expertise to be referring to specific artists in either genre, so I figured it was best left to others to discuss.
Click to expand...

You started an interesting debate. My hunch is that the "purists" dont want to be associated with smooth jazz, as they regard it as a kind of contamination. :D




bongomania said:
Honestly, I think it's because the name "jazz" has deep cultural meaning for some people, whereas for others it is just a word. To complicate matters, the people for whom it has more meaning do not all interpret it with the same deep cultural meaning(s).
Click to expand...

I agree with you assessment. Maybe a cultural meaning was ok in it's early days, but jazz has evolved, and still is, into such a huge genre that it is hard to pin down the branch of this music that people consider to represent this culture. We here in Ireland, as you probably well know, have our music culture too.. Irish traditional music. I am not an expert on it, but in the last forty years or so, it has undergone many changes. These come in the form of arrangements and instruments. There has been electrified versions of it with guitar, bass, drums, sax etc. One of the most popular of these bands was "Moving Hearts". Here is a clip :

They have since disbanded, but were and are still loved by both young and old alike, without all this "this is not Irish trad" nonsence that seems to be the norm in the USA.
 
#106
fearceol said:
One of the most popular of these bands was "Moving Hearts". Here is a clip :



They have since disbanded, but were and are still loved by both young and old alike, without all this "this is not Irish trad" nonsence that seems to be the norm in the USA.
Click to expand...


Ironically, that sounds like smooth jazz to me.
 
#107
fdeck said:
Ironically, that sounds like smooth jazz to me.
Click to expand...

Fair enough ! That's your call :) It's all a matter of interpretation. Probably because of the sax. There are probably other clips where it's closer to Irish trad. That was just the first one I picked. I was just making a point about culture, and how we dont go in for analyses as much. We have our own name for it...music.
 
#111
rarisgod said:
I was on the main page and I caught the name of a thread in the DB section about this, so I thought I'd bring it over here as well.

How would you differentiate between Jazz and Smooth Jazz?

Now a lot of the folks who posted in the DB section said they didn't care too much for smooth jazz, but I like smooth jazz myself. That said, I also love "real" jazz. I don't see either of these types of music anymore "real" than the other, so I don't understand that...

Thoughts on all of this? Discuss.
Click to expand...

It just dawned on me. If you like smooth jazz, why don't you tell us what it is, in your own words.

What do you think smooth jazz is?

Do you like it?

What do you like about it?
 
#112
Smooth jazz is a marketing term that describes a sub-genre of jazz or instrumental pop or R&B music. I have played literally hundreds of live "Smooth" jazz gigs and have done quite a bit of recording,writing and production that fall's into this category but I am NOT a "Smooth Jazz musician". Smooth jazz at it's best combines elements from several genres and at it's worst definitely bow's down to the most base level of blandness. "Smooth" jazz's hayday was basically the mid to late Eightys to about 2003-2004,at that point the stations in America started changing formats and Smooth jazz lost most of it's non satellite audience for radio.

The thing that sticks out to me about the responses to this thread are how few if any people who have the most criticism have actually PLAYED smooth jazz,it's very easy to be dismissive about a style of music when you have never had to play it correctly. It is a pocket and groove orientated style and I have heard many player's struggle to play it correctly especially more straight-ahead orientated jazz players.
 
#113
Pacman said:
So Louis Armstrong and Sidney Bichet....that's not jazz to you?
Click to expand...

No - you missed my point - so that was Jazz then - but what I was saying is that if somebody now(2010), plays an exact copy of what was done in the 1930s - then that isn't Jazz!

What they are doing is playing repertoire - playing a "cover" if you like - but whatever - that is not Jazz!

EDIT - I see bongomania got my point and paraphrased/explained what I meant exactly - thanks! :)
 
#114
rarisgod said:
I see....well to me, Jazz is Jazz, and Smooth Jazz is a different kind of Jazz. Perhaps the "smooth" could indicate that it does not have all the spontaneity and improvisational elements that other Jazz has.
Click to expand...

But that's the big point - improvisation and spontaneity is an integral part of JAZZ - without that - it's just not Jazz!!
 
#116
Bruce Lindfield said:
But that's the big point - improvisation and spontaneity is an integral part of JAZZ - without that - it's just not Jazz!!
Click to expand...

Again have you ever played or recorded smooth jazz to be able to speak with authority on how much improvisation is involved? I know of several straight-ahead jazz artist who record a piece and play, within a few notes,the same solo for years. Also Smooth jazz is notorious for the live shows being much different than the recordings in the sense that the music get's stretched out a lot more.Also as I posted before "Smooth jazz" is a marketing term to describe a radio format not really a genre of music so many types of music,from purely instrumental to Hall & Oats get's lumped together.
 
#117
Bruce Lindfield said:
That's because - as we established in the other thread about this - Smooth Jazz, just doesn't make an impression in Europe and it is almost exclusively a US phenomenon!
Click to expand...

Invalid Link Removed


seems to be more than a few European artists in the genre.
 
#118
willgroove2 said:
Again have you ever played or recorded smooth jazz to be able to speak with authority on how much improvisation is involved? I know of several straight-ahead jazz artist who record a piece and play, within a few notes,the same solo for years. Also Smooth jazz is notorious for the live shows being much different than the recordings in the sense that the music get's stretched out a lot more.Also as I posted before "Smooth jazz" is a marketing term to describe a radio format not really a genre of music so many types of music,from purely instrumental to Hall & Oats get's lumped together.
Click to expand...

Every "smooth" jazz gig I've ever done was anything but smooth by the end of the night :D
 
#119
Pacman said:
Invalid Link Removed


seems to be more than a few European artists in the genre.
Click to expand...

I went through that list and didn't recognise 99% of those names - apart from "Tower of Power" - who are very much American and not Jazz in any way!! :p

I did also notice Brian Bromberg - who to me is in his own category and hardly smooth...?

I also noticed "Shakatak" -who are an 80s Funk band, but who haven't been around in the UK for a long time!! ;)
 
#120
willgroove2 said:
Again have you ever played or recorded smooth jazz to be able to speak with authority on how much improvisation is involved? I know of several straight-ahead jazz artist who record a piece and play, within a few notes,the same solo for years.
Click to expand...


But that is not the point - the point is that without improvisation and spontaneity - Jazz is not Jazz!

You cannot simply play a show tune from the 1930s or 1940s and say "I am Playing Jazz" - no, you are not, you are just playing a particular repertoire.

Jazz intrinsically involves improvisation - if you're not improvising or being spontaneous, then you aren't playing Jazz - and basically in Jazz it doesn't matter what tune you are playing, it is an approach to playing.

So - modern Jazz groups can take any tune - Radiohead, Strokes or White Stripes and make it Jazz - they can use any material.

But if you do not take the approach - then you aint playin Jazz!! :eyebrow:
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back