• 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

#141
From Dictionary.com:

Jazz
–noun
1.
music originating in New Orleans around the beginning of the 20th century and subsequently developing through various increasinglycomplex styles, generally marked by intricate, propulsive rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, improvisatory, virtuosic solos,melodic freedom, and a harmonic idiom ranging from simple diatonicism through chromaticism to atonality.
2.
a style of dance music, popular esp. in the 1920s, arranged for a large band and marked by some of the features of jazz.​

I don't know if that helps or not.

my two cents is that working at a live music venue I've heard my fair share of smooth jazz, and although it's not my cup of tea and I also find it to be a fairly narrow, confining, and repetitive genre, there is PLENTY of improvisation within the groups that I have heard. It's just slowed down and more straightforward (read as "smooth") than the improvisations you hear in the more athletic and hectic jazz groups.
 
#142
baalroo said:
From Dictionary.com:

Jazz
–noun
1.
music originating in New Orleans around the beginning of the 20th century and subsequently developing through various increasinglycomplex styles, generally marked by intricate, propulsive rhythms, polyphonic ensemble playing, improvisatory, virtuosic solos,melodic freedom, and a harmonic idiom ranging from simple diatonicism through chromaticism to atonality.
2.
a style of dance music, popular esp. in the 1920s, arranged for a large band and marked by some of the features of jazz.​

I don't know if that helps or not.

my two cents is that working at a live music venue I've heard my fair share of smooth jazz, and although it's not my cup of tea and I also find it to be a fairly narrow, confining, and repetitive genre, there is PLENTY of improvisation within the groups that I have heard. It's just slowed down and more straightforward (read as "smooth") than the improvisations you hear in the more athletic and hectic jazz groups.
Click to expand...
Many of the players are guys who worked on a lot of the '70's and 80's fusion,R&B and funk scene
 
#143
willgroove2 said:
Don't you think it's a bit dismissive to say somethings not jazz because you don't like it?
Click to expand...


Where did I say that I didn't like it....:confused:

The point of the thread is to differntiate and my statement had no value judgment implied - I was just saying that to me Jazz is not Jazz if there is no improvisation/spontaneity - how is this saying I don't like it...:eyebrow:

In fact if you go back through this thread and read my posts - you will see that I said I do like Sade's music and have several albums including the latest one - I just don't consider that music to be Jazz - in any way!

I like a lot of music that is not Jazz and has no improvising - I go to the Proms each year to see great orchestras from around the world and love the music, but don't expect there to be any improvising!
 
#144
Eublet said:
Many artists work out their solo's beforehand. Even many more get to a point where they no longer improve their playing, and they simply regurgitate the same melodic ideas over and over again. Very little of what they are doing at this point is improvising, but it's still jazz.
Click to expand...

Well to me that is not Jazz and it is certainly not in the spirit of Jazz- which is all about taking risks on the band stand and responding to what is going on around you!

I think labeling is a slippery slope. I'm not accusing you of this at all, but most folks who seem to want to protect what jazz is or isn't are folks who feel a bit snobbish over what they do versus what others can't do.
Click to expand...

But this thread is asking about what is the difference. I have said nothing about Smooth Jazz as this is a phenomenon that does not really exist where I live and have passed no value judegments whatsoever - that is just the people who have replied to me being "defensive" and is in their minds, not what I have written!

I have been talking about what I know as "Jazz" and I am quite happy "labelling" that and saying what it is.

I see no problem with labelling - so I go to Brighton Jazz club each week and all the audience have an expectation that they will see/hear some "Jazz" they know exactly what they mean by this and who is or isn't a Jazz musician/player.

So - they don't expect any particular tunes and on many nights, the band will play all original tunes. They expect no particular group of instruments - although I know acoustic is preferred to electric - they will listen to bass guitar or synthesisers.

But what is essential to a performance at the Jazz Club, is that the majority of the evening will consist of improvised solos, where you can see the performers reacting to each other and the situation. If a fire alarm goes off or somebody falls over, as just a couple of examples - then people laugh about it and it all carries on - with maybe a reference somewhere - they don't say : sorry I'll start that solo again from the beginning! :p

The essence of Jazz for everybody at the club is that they are witnessing a one-off - a unique performance of music that is spontaneous and mostly improvised and nobody I meet at the club will argue that definition - it is taken for granted that that is what Jazz is! :)
 
#146
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well to me that is not Jazz and it is certainly not in the spirit of Jazz- which is all about taking risks on the band stand and responding to what is going on around you!
Click to expand...
That's live performance in general to me, except for orchestrated things. That doesn't describe jazz at all.

Most musical journeys begin at a level where the young musician is impersonating more than improvising. Again, what about my scenario of a novice quartet playing old standards? Aren't those guys playing jazz? Just because they aren't improvising a lot (or well), and just because they aren't yet adept at playing together or bouncing ideas of each other spontaneously doesn't mean they aren't playing jazz!

It sounds like you are describing what is GOOD jazz and what you prefer to hear, and are then trying to define that as jazz for everyone else. No one is going to argue with you that jazz music is typically made up all the elements you have listed, but jazz is also a "style" that can be hard to pin down. Perhaps you have to have a history with it to properly identify when something is or isn't jazz. Perhaps that's also why so many folks who don't have a history with it use the word to readily to describe anything that is instrumental or has a swing beat.
 
#147
Well, as I said before - when I go to my local Jazz club each week - nobody is in any doubt as to what Jazz is - same, when I go to Jazz classes at Sussex University or Jazz Summerschool at Trinity college London.

In fact I have talked to some of the best London Jazz educators and they say they would rather get beginners to Jazz improvising straight away - e.g. on a imple Blues or a few chords, rather than going into theory - as they feel that the essence of Jazz is listening to others and responding, rather than playing something learned verbatim! :hmm:

The latter is good for the ego, but not so good for learning....:eyebrow:
 
#148
Eublet said:
That's live performance in general to me....
Click to expand...

Well I don't see it like that. I started off listening to rock/pop etc and at those gigs, the audience expects to hear what was on the record - they sing along and notice when it doesn't match their expectations.

I also go to Classical concerts by great European orchestras and the audience expect to hear every note in the score - some even sit their with scores and tut when they hear a departure from the written notes! :eyebrow:

Whereas when I go to a Jazz gig, the audience expect improvisation and spontaneity - they even groan when they hear a quote, lick or anything that sounds pre-prepared!

It sounds like you are describing what is GOOD jazz
Click to expand...

If that's about "Good" Jazz - well then surely we should all be aspriring to "Good", in whatever we do and especially in what we listen to!!

Life is too short to listen to music that is not Good!! :)
 
#149
Eublet said:
Perhaps you have to have a history with it to properly identify when something is or isn't jazz. Perhaps that's also why so many folks who don't have a history with it use the word to readily to describe anything that is instrumental or has a swing beat.
Click to expand...

And that is exactly why we have this thread - so that people who do have some experience and have studied Jazz, can explain what Jazz is, to those who have no such advantage! :)

I have studied Jazz for the last 10 - 15 years and have had the benefit of learning about it from some great teachers in the UK, as well as people who know all about Jazz on TB - like Paul Warburton, Chris Fitzgerald, Ed Fuqua and several others! :)

I am quite happy leaving the definition of "Smooth Jazz" to thise who know more about it - but after 10-15 years or more - I think I know what Jazz is! ;)

Although I'm always happy to discuss it and talk about it, when the opportunity arises! :p
 
#150
I have been studying jazz for a few years now but only recently got into playing it. Before, I was just studying the genre.

My finding: it is all jazz. What you do with it is up to you. It is almost zen like.

It's just music. Jazz is the endless climb of a mountain with no reachable peak. Jazz, in my mind, is more about the journey than the destination. Some people may want to explore a mountain with a more gentle slope and some want to hang by their fingers. One path doesn't make the climber a better or worse jazzer. Just more daring or less daring. Some poeple hate bebop. Why play it if you don't like it? Some like to play just the basic changes in a song. Certainly doesn't make it less jazz.

My two cents.
 
#152
"Smooth" Jazz is just the polar opposite of "Free" Jazz. Instead of taking a melody or chord progression and going balls out substituting and rearranging and transforming it into something incredibly complex that most people don't understand, smooth jazz tends "smooth" everything out so it can be relaxed or up tempo but never too complicated to process.

Instrumentation also seems to be a major factor, differing greatly between the two, but Sax always seems to be the focus :)
 
#153
Bruce Lindfield said:
So there's no point in going to a "Jazz" club, as I could hear any type of music....:eyebrow:

And no point in doing a degree in Jazz...:hmm:
Click to expand...
Getting a degree in jazz is fine if that is part of your path of learning. If it isn't, then certainly, it is likely a waste of your time but, musicially, you'd likely be richer for at least the experience. I know plenty of jazzers without a lick of training but never stop learning. Their lack of degree doesn't make them any less musician or jazzer. If you are one to subscribe to the idea that 'this' is jazz and it is playing at a 'jazz' club, then have at it. If that has value to you, then go. If it doesn't, then you could be, again, wasting your time but may come out at least richer for the experience of music but that could be the case hearing a guy play a bicycle at a punk rock bar.

And honestly, you could go to a jazz club and hear all kinds of stuff. Might all be jazz to one person and but an abomination to another. Some places may have restrictions on what 'sound' or 'feel' a performing act might play but that is totally open to interpretation.
 
#155
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well I don't see it like that. I started off listening to rock/pop etc and at those gigs, the audience expects to hear what was on the record - they sing along and notice when it doesn't match their expectations.

I also go to Classical concerts by great European orchestras and the audience expect to hear every note in the score - some even sit their with scores and tut when they hear a departure from the written notes! :eyebrow:

Whereas when I go to a Jazz gig, the audience expect improvisation and spontaneity - they even groan when they hear a quote, lick or anything that sounds pre-prepared!



If that's about "Good" Jazz - well then surely we should all be aspriring to "Good", in whatever we do and especially in what we listen to!!

Life is too short to listen to music that is not Good!! :)
Click to expand...

I completely agree. There is an expectation from a 'jazz' crowd that you wouldn't really find in any other. The moment something sounds contrived or prepared, you certainly don't get musician of the year. The feel and the moment are paramount.


Edit: ...but then, I guess it would depend on the 'jazz' crowd. Just boils down to knowing your crowd. See what they respond to. I have certainly seen spontaneous and even theoretically phenomenal stuff get the raised eyebrow as it just didn't sonically go over well and something similar work with others at another time. Just one of those things. Watching a musician, I might think, "That was slick", others might get more enjoyment out of their beer.

As far as 'good', that is possibly the most subjective part of music. Always aspire to what you think 'good' is. I am absolutely with you there. I suppose I just do it not caring what style people think it is. Definitely makes it a bit harder to land gigs when you aren't able to label yourself in terms other than, "Just go. I will be right behind you." Funny enough, can't do that on a guitar. Only bass. Weird.
 
#157
Well that is the point I was making earlier - you might want to be uncategorisable - but the audience want to know what they are getting!

I go to my local Jazz club and know what they mean by Jazz - there are many other similar venues in London - the audience knows what Jazz is about and they will vote with their feet if you don't match their expectation!
 
#158
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?
Click to expand...

Barry Clark said:
Oh, ...and I am not meaning to come across as "I think I know the answers" or saying that one person's interpretation of jazz is wrong or whatever. I am only meaning to offer my point of view and spur on the debate. Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Well - I like a good, general discussion, but this thread is asking a very specific question, which I have copied above!! :)
 
#159
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well that is the point I was making earlier - you might want to be uncategorisable - but the audience want to know what they are getting!

I go to my local Jazz club and know what they mean by Jazz - there are many other similar venues in London - the audience knows what Jazz is about and they will vote with their feet if you don't match their expectation!
Click to expand...
Funny enough, I don't like being uncategorized. I find it annoying. But... I have learned to accept it. It is what it is and I am having fun regardless.

Fans do vote with their feet. No doubt.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back