• 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

#161
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well - I like a good, general discussion, but this thread is asking a very specific question, which I have copied above!! :)
Click to expand...
One "disconnect" between your responses, and the responses of others here, is that the original question is --as you point out-- how do you differentiate between the two.

You weighed in with the assertion that Jazz requires improvisation and other artistic qualities; when people then challenged you by saying "well smooth jazz often has improvisation and artistry as well", you responded by saying "I didn't say anything about smooth jazz". But surely you can see that is disingenuous, because there would be no point in asserting what Jazz is unless you were trying to make the case for differentiating it from smooth jazz! It would be totally non-sequitur.

Just pointing out a logical disconnect here, not actually disagreeing with your (or anyone's) various points.
 
#164
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.
.​
Click to expand...


I would be happy to go with that definition - although what I meant was that if I go to a Jazz club and see a band play - then I can say with certainty whether or not it is Jazz and 99.9% of the time, none of the audience is in any doubt either! ;)​
 
#165
Bruce Lindfield said:
I would be happy to go with that definition - although what I meant was that if I go to a Jazz club and see a band play - then I can say with certainty whether or not it is Jazz and 99.9% of the time, none of the audience is in any doubt either! ;)
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

The word in that definition I would tend to stay away from, and this is me, is 'virtuosic' only because that is very open to interpretation.

I have run across many a jazz head that have very strong feelings about what does and doesn't constitute jazz. If played through a high gain guitar rig and has some of the tonal qualities of say what someone might readily recognize as 'metal' or 'death metal' even, but it did have interpretive leads and the other qualities mentioned in the definition, would you still then call it jazz? I ask as surely you wouldn't see that at what I know as a jazz club nor would it likely ever be allowed as many would see it as grating.
 
#167
Bruce Lindfield said:
I would be happy to go with that definition - although what I meant was that if I go to a Jazz club and see a band play - then I can say with certainty whether or not it is Jazz and 99.9% of the time, none of the audience is in any doubt either! ;)
Click to expand...

That sounds to me as repressive and bland as most of the problems people have with smooth jazz. IMO, it's clubs like you are describing that help to give the "jazz" part of "smooth jazz" credibility.
 
#168
Okay, without being snarky...

The biggest areas I hear between the two, in a technical sense, is the rhythm and use of melody. Smooth Jazz seems to have more pop/R&B type drums, with the drums carrying the beat, (snare on 2 & 4) where Traditional Jazz having the hat or ride carrying the beat and the drums being used to accent.

The instrumentation seems to differ as well: Smooth seems to use more electric instruments (particularly bass) and emphasizes melody, (much like like pop music) over harmonic complexity and improvisation. I've always figured Smooth Jazz was like light pop music with fewer vocals.

As a musical idiom, it *is* interesting -- some great musicians have played this music (Marcus Miller, anyone?) and there are a few *great* groups... but to make a buck, these folks have to write music that has mass appeal -- I chatted with a fellow who did booking for the Yellowjackets - he said to pay bills, they tour over 200 days a year. YIKES - and they are far from rich... So it's understandable that they'd try to sell records by making the music "Accessible" - a compromise that many folks who play traditional jazz refuse to make. And let's all admit it: Some "Traditional" jazz is quite unlistenable (Ornette Coleman leaps to mind...)
 
#169
I've played in some successful Smooth Jazz acts.

Couple of notes.

Smooth Jazz is more about the diatonic hook... the customers are more about the melody than the snobbery and snottish talent. The traditional guys I've played with wanted to sell their talent level.. the smooth guys wanted to write hooky tunes (and sell CDs).

I'd take the DB forums wiht a grain of salt. Unfortunately these guys are commonly ticked about the price of stings, logistics of moving it.. and the fact that folks like the "look" and can't care about the tone.. When I solely played Upright.. I also adopted the snobby ticked off demenanor.

Overall.. one is based on knowledge/talent level... the other is based around marketing appeal.

I know this will get me flamed.. I've made tons more playing smooth jazz on a graphite bass than traditional on an upright.
 
#170
MNAirHead said:
I've played in some successful Smooth Jazz acts.

Couple of notes.

Smooth Jazz is more about the diatonic hook... the customers are more about the melody than the snobbery and snottish talent. The traditional guys I've played with wanted to sell their talent level.. the smooth guys wanted to write hooky tunes (and sell CDs).

I'd take the DB forums wiht a grain of salt. Unfortunately these guys are commonly ticked about the price of stings, logistics of moving it.. and the fact that folks like the "look" and can't care about the tone.. When I solely played Upright.. I also adopted the snobby ticked off demenanor.

Overall.. one is based on knowledge/talent level... the other is based around marketing appeal.

I know this will get me flamed.. I've made tons more playing smooth jazz on a graphite bass than traditional on an upright.
Click to expand...

Many years ago I ended up on a gig subbing on bass with a group of guy's all based in NYC who were all considered "young lions" of straight ahead jazz at the time and who were gigging with people like Betty Carter,Freddy Hubbard Ecton the regular. The bassist who was supposed to be there got sick the night before they flew in and I got the call.It was the Piano players gig and he had made a record that had some more groove or backseat orientated stuff which was right up my ally. We were all about the same age with similar backgrounds so we got along right away,I was very impressed by the fact they were all gigging with the people they were playing with but the really crazy thing was that every one of them came to me privately and let me know they were looking for a R&B gig or what was becoming known as Smooth jazz gig mainly because of the money(and the fact that more women our age came to those type of gig's)
 
#171
baalroo said:
That sounds to me as repressive and bland as most of the problems people have with smooth jazz. IMO, it's clubs like you are describing that help to give the "jazz" part of "smooth jazz" credibility.
Click to expand...

Well no - you have obviously never been to Brighton Jazz club!! :eyebrow:

So, I have seen Jazz groups with Palestinian micro-tonal singers, with string quartets combining Schonberg and Jazz; harmonic influence from Olivier Messiean's atonal theories; original pieces starting from a bass line in 21/4!! :eek:

I have seen more variety in a few months of Jazz , than in decades of attending rock gigs - but I have never seen "Smooth Jazz" at Brighton Jazz Club - spiky, lumpy, dissonant, difficult - yes! Smooth - No!! ;)
 
#172
bongomania said:
OK, so taking that starting point, how does it help distinguish between jazz and smooth jazz?
Click to expand...

Well - as I was saying - I know what Jazz is, so if it is not Jazz - then maybe it is Smooth. So - as I said, if there is no improvising/spontaneity, then it is not Jazz - there is a big distinguishing feature! :)
 
#173
Barry Clark said:
Fair enough.

The word in that definition I would tend to stay away from, and this is me, is 'virtuosic' only because that is very open to interpretation.

I have run across many a jazz head that have very strong feelings about what does and doesn't constitute jazz. If played through a high gain guitar rig and has some of the tonal qualities of say what someone might readily recognize as 'metal' or 'death metal' even, but it did have interpretive leads and the other qualities mentioned in the definition, would you still then call it jazz? I ask as surely you wouldn't see that at what I know as a jazz club nor would it likely ever be allowed as many would see it as grating.
Click to expand...


Actually - what amazed me when I first went to small Jazz clubs was how "virtuosic" the players were, compared to the rock/pop musicians I had worked with!

So my jaw dropped - when I saw guys playing incredibly fast tempos on the most complex harmonic structures without any apparent effort....:eek:

Also - the way it looked like they never could make a mistake, despite taking huge risks ...?

I have also seen electric guitarists playing pretty loud at my local Jazz club, with distortion, electronics etc.

There are lots of "noise" bands in Free Jazz in the UK!! ;)
 
#174
BigOldHarry said:
And let's all admit it: Some "Traditional" jazz is quite unlistenable (Ornette Coleman leaps to mind...)
Click to expand...


Ornette is great - I'd much rather listen to his albums any day - his music was groundbreaking and featured some of the best musicians ever!

One of the great moments in music is on "Free Jazz" where the horns stop playing and there is an extended bass duet between Charlie Haden and Scott le Faro - any bass player has to love that! :)
 
#177
Bruce Lindfield said:
Well - I see no disconnect, I am just saying that I know what is Jazz and what is not - so this is my starting point.
Click to expand...

I guess the reason this statement bothers me is because is it's so absolute,if you had said IMO or something like that I would have no problem but repetitively making that kind of statement could make someone,ok me, question your credibility to make that kind of statement.Jazz has all kind of styles and sub-genres so saying what jazz is or isn't is a matter of perspective. As far as I know there no Jazz hand book that we can use for reference that would be universally accepted,Wynton Marsalis might say if music doesn't have a blues element or swing it isn't jazz while someone else might say that as long as there is improvisation it qualify's so speaking in absolutes is a bit difficult on the subject
 
#179
willgroove2 said:
As far as I know there no Jazz hand book that we can use for reference that would be universally accepted...
Click to expand...

I know of a couple of these :

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

http://www.amazon.com/Penguin-Guide..._1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267030620&sr=8-1#noop

51767WWP8RL._SL500_AA240_.jpg


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jazz-Theory...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267030801&sr=8-1
 
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back