• 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.

Smooth Jazz for Beginners

#41
" Jazz " is such a generic term, Smooth or Contemporary Jazz to me means anything with a groove IMO , I get into stuff by Fourplay , Jeff Lorber , Lee Ritenour ,Bob James etc .... all exceptionally executed compositions with great production and " A " class musicians .
Its the sort of music you can throw on and forget , doesnt wind you up too much and fits into the background on most occasions , unfortunately for me , many a good tune is ruined by a porno style sax line but im prepared to listen to the music as a whole and appreciate it as a package . A lot of my friends dig me for getting into " elevator " style music but im sure they dont appreciate the caliber of musicianship thats gone into making it ie.

Brian Culbertson
Alex Al
Nathan East
Marcus Miller
Vinnie Coliauta
Lee Ritenour
Melvin Lee Davis
Jeff Lorber
Bob James
Larry Carlton
John Roberts
Brian Bromberg

But yes , there`s a huge difference between Trumpet Swing jazz [ traditional ] and Modern session muso " smooth " Jazz , you cant say theres such a huge variation with Rock , Country or Opera .
 
#43
mixtapelove said:
Monster player. And he's got such a humble, laid back attitude at the same time. I have gotten the chance to jam with him in Denver at a club called Herb's; there's a regular Wednesday night jam there which he frequently comes to. This is a guy who's played everywhere and with everyone, but he does not have a trace of ego or pretense.... he's got nothing to prove to anybody; he comes along with his 5 string Fender Jazz, sits back in his chair and lays it down.

We have managed to get him to drop an occasional Spyro Gyra story, but he does get somewhat reluctant to talk about them as his tenure with them did not end on very good terms. As we understand it, the two de facto leaders of said band are notoriously cheap (and quick to jettison the occasionally brazen musician who ever dares to call such thrift into question).

City Kids is a great album.... but I think they used session guys on that record (Will Lee?)... in fact, I think the original Letterman rhythm section (Lee + Hiram Bullock & Steve Jordan) did a lot of that record. Steve Gadd's on it too and possibly Marcus Miller. I know the album before (Incognito, also very good) is mostly Marcus Miller.

Kim did the '83 tour and appears on the live record that followed (Access All Areas) and did the next four or five studio records before going to the Rippingtons. I think he told us he was on 15 Rippingtons albums.
Click to expand...


I wonder why he quit the rippingtons. For me, it's not quite the Rippingtons without him (though i do have the latest album he is not on).
 
#44
The difference is MONEY.
IMHO
Most jazz players would not be able to work unless a certain evolution ( or branching out) of traditional jazz occurred in order to sell records,and get audiences in venues for them to be of some value for venues owners and record producers.

Despite the fact original jazz/rock fusion was in the hands of certain individuals that had a lot to say in very original ways (weather report,mahavishnu,return to forever,path metheny,bill bruford,brandX,others),the later players found a common ground where they can play something that wasn't much as original but attracted audiences and sell records and kept showing their playing abilities to a certain extent.
This was good for the players and producers equally,both keep making some money that couldn;t happen if they kept playing classic jazz.
The early success of labels like ECM,that dedicated ONLY to produce thet avant-guarde of jazz players(like metheny,jarret and others) started fading away,and was hard to emulate by other companies.
So,what was to be done? a genre where jazz oriented players could keep playing and attractive to broader audiences less inclined to traditional jazz.

I also think that if the genre stuck in the market is because it had something to offer,and there is/was consumers.
The debate is futile,since we all know that if you want to work in music,you MUST be able to accept everything as such,and be able to play it.
There is not much a point in making the argument.
In wonder how many of the ones that have an opinion about it can actually play at the required level.
Improvisation in this type of music require the same level (or even higher) of understanding and technique as a jazz player must have.
You think any less?
 
#45
excellent post. And it re-inforces what i already knew and believed: That the musicianship in smooth jazz is of a very high caliber, and does not need to be snubbed or looked down on....just because this particular style of JAZZ is more commercially oriented and succesful then more traditional styles.

And that brings me back to the OPs question. I do believe for someone who wants to learn any type of Jazz, smooth jazz is an excellent portal to go through on your journey.

My first interest in jazz came from latter day miles davis (Tutu, etc..) and after discovering I liked it, started tracking back and exploring his earlier stuff...

Same goes for most of the fusion bands I liked early on (the 80's)...most of them led me on a route to traditional jazz. If not for those bands, perhaps I never would have done this or gotten to like them. To this day, I love both old and new. When I practice upright, it is along with Bill Evans and Oscar Peterson recordings (and others, of course) but when i practice my electric, I play along with Rippingtons, Bob James, Fourplay, Spyo Gyra and others. At no point in any of my musical journeys have I compared one style to another and looked down on anything. They are just different styles, that's it. No better or no worse.
 
#46
I've always associated smooth jazz with those cheesey melodies and over-processed albums. There are a lot of great players in smooth jazz, and I don't belittle it, but it is cheese to the max IMO. Swanky, ganky, hard to describe melodies. I love Wayman Tisdale myself also in person or in concert, but can't really listen to that stuff on albums. It just doesn't speak to me. Lots of players who can do smooth jazz can't play standards, much less bebop, cool or modal styles of jazz which is what "real" jazz really is.

So for the original poster, starting out in smooth jazz in no way prepares your for "real" jazz. In fact, it will delay your development because if "real" jazz is what you want to play, your most direct method of getting there is to start learning some standards, beginning with the chord changes and how to walk bass lines underneath them. Learn the melodies and how to do some simple comping. If you study hard and have decent talent, you can be doing alright with it inside of a year or two pretty easily, at least enough to fake it on the slower stuff. But to really be even slightly good at it requires a lifetime of pursuit and a lot of talent. It's not for most musicians. That's why there's smooth jazz and rock 'n' roll. :D
 
#49
Makatak said:
...but im sure they dont appreciate the caliber of musicianship thats gone into making it ie.

Brian Culbertson
Alex Al
Nathan East
Marcus Miller
Vinnie Coliauta
Lee Ritenour
Melvin Lee Davis
Jeff Lorber
Bob James
Larry Carlton
John Roberts
Brian Bromberg
Click to expand...

lucas vigor said:
That the musicianship in smooth jazz is of a very high caliber, and does not need to be snubbed or looked down on...
Click to expand...

That's the rub-
Much of Smooth Jazz is produced by A+ players...earlier, IIRC, I mentioned a Micahle Franks Blindfold Test from Downbeat. He did not hold any punches back with his critique of Hebie Hancock's Feets Don't Fall Me Now. In short, Franks was vastly disappointed...because it was Herbie & a cast of A+++ studio guys playing BS.
I also recall a similar review of Freddie Hubbard's Windjammer album (cannot recall who did that Blindfold Test...I do recall the guy being miffed that the great Freddie Hubbard put out a "Disco" record).

In a way, all of us are similarly 'critiqued'...at home, work, school, etc. Back in my college daze, I wrote a fluff piece...my professor called me out, too. And I quote: "I expected more out of you than this ill-conceived, hackneyed crap".

If A+ work is expected from A+ players...that's as it should be.
;)

Anyway, just makin' conversation...if it floats your boat, go for it.
 
#50
LowNotes1 said:
I've been playing bass for almost 40 years, but very little jazz. I thought I'd try testing the waters with some smooth jazz to get my feet wet - any recommended cuts with some interesting bass parts that aren't super-hard from a technical standpoint? The smooth jazz music channel on cable occasionally has some candidates, but I'd be interested in some suggestions for good starter material from those more familiar with the genre than me.
Click to expand...

As you can see, the OP is asking specifically about smooth jazz.
Those of you who hate it, look down your noses at it, or ridicule it, should not bother posting on this thread. I mean, seriously, why are you here?

I don't go to the stoner/doom metal thread and post there, putting it down. I don't like stoner/doom metal and nothing anyone there says would convince me otherwise....so I have nothing to contribute.

If you only like pure, traditional jazz....why not find another thread to inhabit? You obviously don't get smooth jazz, have had limited exposure to it, or otherwise think a jazz band must have 20 minute chromatic solos with 5 million notes in them to be "real" jazz. Sorry folks, but the majority of people don't LIKE that type of playing. It takes years to be able to do it, anyway. The poster says he already has 40 years in...what, you want to add another 40 to it? Guy will be dead before he can ever play to your standards.

Do you know the difference between a jazz snob and a regular musician?

regular musicians "Play".

Jazz musicians "Blow".


(That one always kills me. It's a string instrument we play, not a wind instrument!!!!!)
 
#51
lucas vigor said:
Wow. Stunning amount of snobbery, and incorrect assumptions being posted here.
Click to expand...
Lucas-
I like discussion & banter.
That said, has it ever occurred to you that maybe your assumptions are incorrect?
;)
I am glad Tutu inspired you to dig deep & back. You are in the minority. When I first bought Tutu...suffice to say, I had a different response than you.

Jazz is an artform. By its nature, it may not be for everyone. It may take time & effort in order to appreciate it.
Those I know into 'yuppie Jazz' throw it on for background noise...they would never, ever sit down & try to like Mingus or Monk.
Hell, for some of my friends (as mentioned earlier), Spyro Gyra & The Yellowjackets are "too outside".

I wonder if Classical boards have similar discussions with New Age music lovers?
;)

Take care...
 
#52
Jim K, I listen to pretty much all jazz. My collection is huge. it contains a lot of "outside" and "modal" jazz, as well as more melodic jazz. West Coast is probably my favorite jazz of the more traditional variety. I also enjoy big band.

I think your approach to jazz is very much the same approach many classical people have. Your music is NOT an entertainment but an "art".

Ok. That's where we are going to have to agree to disagree.

And the funny thing, is that many of the Jazz cats look at their music very different then you do. take the mid 60's Miles. Probably the template for most modal and modern Jazz. For you, it's a laboratory of technical prowess (rightfully so) but to the man who made it, it was something more. Have you ever read the Miles autobiography? More then a few times he mentions pure blues and BB King as his influences and idols. Simple, country music is what he liked and was trying to put in his music. The book is a classic, and I especially like the sections where he talks about Keith Jarrett in such a derisive way. Keith Jarrett is the very epitome of a jazz snob, by the way.

Then, in the world of Classical, you have masters of atonality and "math" music like Charles Ives. But to him, it was simply the sound of two marching bands coming from different parts of town, headed toward the bandstand in the center, and both bands playing different songs with amateur musicans who are out of pitch and rythem.
 
#53
I do not agree with some people,but doesn't mean I close my mind to different approaches.
The guy is clearly asking about smooth jazz,as to start with something that can open doors for new ways to apply his knowledge,and gain some more.
It will probably lead him to some standards at the end,but I can say fusion will teach him greatly,if he is coming from a place where there is not much development regarding the use of not usual scales.
Also,there is an energy that must be put forward the actual playing,and the handling of different elements of rhythm.
I uploaded a small progression to soundcloud that will ultimately be a complete tune soon,if you want to listen.(beside the drum machine and the piano,the rest is all bass,including improvised lead)
The point I want to make is that the genre allows you to insert elements (like salsa brass breaks for example) that are hardly used in jazz in the same way.
There is some educational content in smooth jazz,despite the argument if is real jazz or not.
The idea is everything is there for you to use and learn from.
And let me tell you,it is a LOT of fun playing that stuff,he he
 
#56
And what type of music will? Rock? Beatles?


Smooth Jazz IS Jazz whether you want it to be or not. The players who play smooth jazz well, all come from a jazz background. They are jazz musicians playing a new form of jazz that has been around since the 70's. But make no mistake, it IS jazz.
 
#57
lucas vigor said:
And what type of music will? Rock? Beatles?

Smooth Jazz IS Jazz whether you want it to be or not. The players who play smooth jazz well, all come from a jazz background. They are jazz musicians playing a new form of jazz that has been around since the 70's. But make no mistake, it IS jazz.
Click to expand...

It masters not who is playing. They're very different.
 
#59
And this is what I love, I mean LOVE about talkbass. All the experts pop off about how much they know....and of course, you know better then the experts. Better then the music labels, record companys, the jazz artists who make smooth jazz. Oh, you know better then Pat Metheny...a jazz guitarist who performed that classic bebop piece, "This is not america"...

Invalid Link Removed

Pat Metheny, Roy Haynes, Dave Holland: How Insensitive - YouTube
 
#60
lucas vigor said:
very different?

Different then say, Glenn Miller and ornette coleman are? More different then Django Rheinhart and Christian McBride?

I am pretty sure you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
Speaking of the Swing Band era, I do wonder if they had today's communications how many dance bands which are now in Target's Jazz section would have had many saying that is not jazz.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back