• 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.

Phenomenon of Smooth Jazz

#81
Disco lasted because people liked to dance to it.
Hip-hop will last as long as people like what it's sayin'.
Blues will be around as long as people have problems.

What's my point?
Music is communication. It moves people, makes people feel things, even if it's just kinda laying in the background chilin'. Let's not denigrate musicians for playing what people pay for (for whatever reason) nor people for liking what they like. Music is an art form, and there's enough different purposes, seasons and occasions for all of it.

When did it become a bad thing to like something forever?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jhengsman, DrMole, MikeMig and 2 others
#82
Kind of like how Fugues achieved aesthetic perfection 400 years ago. I used to go to hippie jam band music festivals in high school and college, and I used to think "funny how all these drug addicts came to choose smooth jazz as their religion ..."
 
#84
ElectroVibe said:
Does anyone ever think it kind of interesting how this music has not really changed much in the last 40 years.

Before, it seems like jazz changed more drastically about every 5 years or so.

What's the cause? Is this like some Perfect form of music that achieved that level 40 years ago? Did something special happen in the world around 1980?

Discuss this phenomenon or your favorite artists in the genre.
Click to expand...
It hasn't changed much, because there wasn't much to it, to begin with, I think. It's jazz for people who don't have the attention span for jazz. Jazz was about innovation. Smooth jazz is background music for cocktail parties.
 
#85
Robot.G said:
If it's all about the pay then it's simply about the pay and not art.
Click to expand...
And that's what was largely responsible for the "death" of disco (and should probably be responsible for the "death" of hip-hop). At its inception, disco was a vibrant and exciting new take on dance music. Before long, however, it became the go-to formula for anyone who wanted to make money selling records. What started as a cool, underground phenomenon ended up being a cringe-worthy cliche.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole, LBS-bass, weird_hermiston and 2 others
#86
Pings Bass said:
I'm just going with Wynton Marsalis on this one; I don't have his pedigree, education and talent to defend that opinion as thoroughly as he could. Suffice it to say, while it draws on elements of the distinctly Black American mid 20th century art form called jazz, "smooth jazz" lacks most of the defining elements of what I (and Wynton) consider jazz.

At the end of the day, for people who like that sort of thing, that's the sort of thing they like, so no judgement from me. It's hard to argue with enduring commercial success.

It's not my bag, but i imagine some of the Latin jazz i like and make could get pigeon-holed as smooth jazz or easy listening. I still try to keep an edge on it, but I'm definitely not blazing trails by any stretch, so I probably misuse the term jazz myself by Wynton's definitions.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Wynton's intentions are good, I think, but he's very traditional. From what I've read(I may be wrong), jazz is best exemplified as what it was from 55-65 with him. I don't think he put Bitches Brew or Meditations in there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DavidEdenAria and JoshS
#88
bass12 said:
And that's what was largely responsible for the "death" of disco (and should probably be responsible for the "death" of hip-hop). At its inception, disco was a vibrant and exciting new take on dance music. Before long, however, it became the go-to formula for anyone who wanted to make money selling records. What started as a cool, underground phenomenon ended up being a cringe-worthy cliche.
Click to expand...
Hip-hop ain't dying anytime soon, it's supplanted rock as the dominant cultural force, which I think is good and bad.
 
#91
Spectre Gunner said:
When I first starting listening to satellite radio (years ago) there was a dedicated Jazz Fusion station. I listened to that one the most and discovered some uncommon bands that played originals and were great. I'd seek out and buy their CDs. After a year or so they dropped that station and replaced it with Smooth Jazz and it's been that way ever since.

Nothing against the smooth jazz genre in general just doesn't do it for me but there are exceptions. They don't have to drop Smooth Jazz but, Bring Back Jazz Fusion!
Click to expand...
Problem is, IMO, the line between fusion and smooth jazz started to blur a lot in the late 70's, tonally, melodically and stylistically. When I hear "fusion" I think Headhunters or Mahavishnu. Other people hear Yellowjackets or Spyro Gyra. When I hear them, I think 'smooth jazz with ridiculous chops'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jhengsman, LBS-bass and weird_hermiston
#93
Holdsg said:
I played real jazz on piano in Jr high and High School.
I had a teacher, who was a gigging jazz pianist, and I made progress.
Our HS band was pretty good, we won state championship my Jr year of HS. We made a "record". it was fun.
I was one of the few jazz pianists in the state that would not mind playing solos, and I got good remarks during our adjudicated competitions.
So I thought I knew my stuff and was a good player
I got to university and found I knew nothing and was a hack player (everyone else I met was so much better at soloing/comping, could read anything, were writing their own songs, etc. where I was just "covering" Count Basie)
I gave up and just focused on my other studies.
That was the end of my formal jazz training and playing, around 1984.
I was aware of the popular side of jazz all along.
We'd play Spyrogyra and Chuck Mangione songs, as well as Stan Kenton and Buddy Rich.
I liked playing the pop jazz songs a lot more than the traditional. We never really got into be-bop. Too out there for a HS jazz band.
When the first smooth jazz station started up in my town, I listened, and I liked most of it.
I could not stand Kenny G, however, and still can't
So, to me and my experience, smooth/pop jazz is just that...geared to the average listener and commercial success
There is still room for traditional jazz in clubs and on radio...but the audience that appreciates that is quite small. no wonder.
Just like hip hop is most popular (based on sales) music today (and is usually dreadful musically), it's geared to commercial success, not musical integrity.
Not surprising that smooth jazz as a form of music has persisted, because people buy it, go to the shows.
Click to expand...

What’s wrong with Count Basie?

I know what you’re trying to say, like, ‘Count Basie ain’t Bud Powell…’

My point is, there is so much more to Jazz than scholastically proving to no one that you can speak “the language” of Charlie Parker, when most people would much rather listen to the Lester Youngs of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weird_hermiston
#94
lordradish said:
Wynton's intentions are good, I think, but he's very traditional. From what I've read(I may be wrong), jazz is best exemplified as what it was from 55-65 with him. I don't think he put Bitches Brew or Meditations in there.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's about where I'm at, too, but I'd take it back a couple decades.

Miles kept moving, to his credit, but i never cared for his fusion turn.

Like i said, i don't care about the industry's taxonomy or what anybody chooses to call the music they make our listen to.

For me there's a line from Jelly Roll Morton and Sidney Bechet and Satchmo and all the old New Orleans cats through Ellington, Mingus, Monk and Coltrane that basically died off in the 60s. Sure, elements of that art form live on in many (most) other popular music genres, but the art form itself has been academicised and appropriated to the point that it no longer has a clear line of cultural and artistic inheritance from those early- and mid-century masters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DrMole, weird_hermiston, lordradish and 1 other person
#97
Pings Bass said:
One explanation is that smooth jazz isn't jazz, it's instrumental pop
Click to expand...


To a large degree, this is true, but there are exceptions. I occasionally listen to Sirius XM's Watercolors channel just to see what's new, before switching back to Real Jazz. Sometimes I'm surprised at hearing some very inventive and creative solos and arrangements. Sometimes they play a tune by Marcus.

It does seem that although there are new names, most of the music could have been recorded 40 years ago. One thing that seems to have changed is that the rhythm sections and especially bassists are sometimes more dynamic now. In the early days I think it was all solos over a track. There has been an influx of musicians from black gospel, and those guys often have bigtime chops.

However, Kenny G sux.
 
Last edited:
#99
To quote Bill Anschell:
5. Smooth Jazz is, of course, not jazz at all. Apart from the fact that its bass and drum parts are actually repetitive pop patterns and its harmonies are simple pop progressions, its practitioners are entirely unlike jazz artists. They are well-paid, well-balanced, enjoy normal hobbies, have many fans, appreciate their audiences, and seem to harbor minimal disdain for mankind as a whole.

From Careers in jazz.
Careers in Jazz article @ All About Jazz


For what I know. When the bebop started after the swing era, people lost interest. Jazz went from dance to deep listening music. Not for everyone. The start of rock & roll did not help either. There’s still good jazz out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jhengsman, DrMole, weird_hermiston and 2 others

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back