Smooth Jazz for Beginners

[SteveC]

For the record, smooth jazz isn't jazz.

Only 3 posts to get into this. Pretty closed minded. Depends on your definition, too, I guess. Around here people would rather listen to a smooth jazz quartet for their background music than one playing the same old standards.

 

[lucas vigor]

According to many on this thread, probably not one of the big bands would have been considered Jazz, especially if they had a vocalist. It's a shame people have to have such a narrow view of music.

I cannot define what Jazz is. But Iknow it when I hear it. Absolutely.


I think what the jazz snobs are saying is that if it isn't Charlie Parker, John Coltrane or Monk....it's not "real" jazz.

These are the types that stopped listening to Miles when he went electric. They had snobs back then, too....and Miles was sick and tired of them and rolled right over them creating "Bitches Brew"....the template for most jazz fusion.

I wonder how these snobs think about Jobim? Let me guess, because you can find the songs in the "fake" book (Something I NEVER use) then it is jazz, right?

Jazz is a feeling. Certain chords evoke that feeling. Those chords used in certain context can evoke the same feeling. And though classical music may at certain times use the same chords...they are NOT used in the same way. Certain prog rock bands have very complex music, but they are not creating jazz. Jazz has a certain sophistication to it. One poster here derisively called it "Swank"...and the term "Swanky" is to me, a compliment.

 

[lucas vigor]

[IMHO, Jazz is supposed to be anything but "smooth". YMMV.

Tell that to George Shearing.

George Shearing Quintet - I'll Be Around - YouTube

 

[Eublet]

Man, the guy asked about getting prepared to play jazz, and asked what smooth jazz artists would be the place to start. That's why folks are saying they are so different. I don't care what the labels are necessarily, nor do I care to elevate one stylistic genre over another. But the two are not the same, and it doesn't matter if you want to call smooth jazz "jazz" or not. They are very different. Just because they both contain chord changes that are outside of diatonic norms, using extensions and such for extra color, and more complex melodies than perhaps one might find in pop music, doesn't mean that it's "jazz" in the truest sense of the word. This isn't a big deal I don't think.

Much of jazz involves walking basslines. Very little smooth jazz does. Just on that one point alone, how could working on smooth jazz as a bass player prepare one for playing jazz? Everything I've said in this thread is in reference to the OP's goals. If he wants to play jazz, then he needs to start learning all those basic standards that any jazz bassist would likely teach, things like Autumn Leaves, All the Things You Are, Blue in Green, or any of the endless number of 12-bar blues tunes. The listener needs to also immerse himself in jazz listening, starting with many of the "big" jazz albums...Kind of Blue, Birth of Cool, Blue Train, and on and on. Listening to Dave Coz, Wayman Tisdale or the Sax Pack and learning to play those bass lines isn't really going to help him.

This has nothing to do with genre bashing.

 

[lucas vigor]

Fair enough.

 

[FretlessMainly]

Around here people would rather listen to a smooth jazz quartet for their background music than one playing the same old standards.

I think this is very telling - I never listen to music as background music. When I listen to music I am immersing myself in it; letting it take me where it will. I wouldn't denegrate music enough to render it to background status. That you would be comfortable relegating smooth jazz to that status speaks volumes regarding what many of us have been trying to get across here.

 

[ACalbass]

hummmm...Blues
Is Blues rock or is it jazz??
The Allman's do Blues,I asume they are jazz players?
Is bossa nova jazz even when is from Brasil that has no jazz tradition whatsoever? (and if you try to contradict it,then you will see how many other countries can be considered in the genre)
I guess not many have played samba or other regional brasilian styles.
Only what is in the real book counts as jazz?

My point is there was a time where jazz players couldn't play jazz for a living anymore,so they moved with the market and created this smooth genre.
I can tell you : a rock player cannot play it,a country player cannot play it,a classical player cannot play it,THEY ALL HAVE TO LEARN THE GENRE,just like any other and the basics of this genre is jazz.
Does anyone disagree jazz players can play smooth jazz?
There is something to learn ALWAYS,from any kind of music.

 

[lucas vigor]

I think this is very telling - I never listen to music as background music. When I listen to music I am immersing myself in it; letting it take me where it will. I wouldn't denegrate music enough to render it to background status. That you would be comfortable relegating smooth jazz to that status speaks volumes regarding what many of us have been trying to get across here.

So, you prefer your movies to have no soundtrack then?

Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Not all music has to be the star of the show, so to speak. Music has served MANY functions since the dawn of time.

In church, is the gospel music the main reason you are there?

When a person dies, and the trumpeter plays taps or the bagpipe does his thing...is that the main reason you came to the funeral?

And for your information, I get plenty of "immersion" from Spyro Gyra, Metheny, Rippingtons, etc....

 

[FretlessMainly]

So, you prefer your movies to have no soundtrack then?

I don't mind a movie sound track, just as long as it isn't smooth jazz.

Sorry, but this is ridiculous.

My opinion is ridiculous? I think that's ridiculous.

In church, is the gospel music the main reason you are there?

If I were to go then it probably would be.

When a person dies, and the trumpeter plays taps or the bagpipe does his thing...is that the main reason you came to the funeral?

At that moment, it would be the focal point for my reflection on the dearly departed; hence, it would not be background. It would be a vehicle.

And for your information, I get plenty of "immersion" from Spyro Gyra, Metheny, Rippingtons, etc....

I never suggested in any way that you do not, could not or would not. My comment was directed at another users' post about music serving as background and their preference for smooth jazz over jazz standards. As such, my opinion should be basically meaningless to you.

 

[lucas vigor]

Yes, your opinion is to me, meaningless. However, it is your opinion...and thus, belongs to you.

Personally, if I had that special evening with a lady in front of a roaring fire or better yet, a hot tub surrounded by candles...I would rather play this in the background:

Boney James (HQ) - Butter (Sax Instrumental ) - YouTube

Then some John Coltrane song like "giant steps".

Different strokes for different folks.

Also, when I am relaxing, reading, getting ready to turn in after a hard day at work...it is something smooth and easy that I turn to, not something that demands all my attention. At that point, I could care less for chromatic riffs and greek modes. I just want to relax.

And the fact that the same artists who make that smooth, relaxing music can also turn up the heat and make a higher energy album like the Rippingtons "let it ripp" only sweetens the deal for me.



I also noticed the Fripp quote in your sig. Crimson is one of my all time favorite bands. In fact, I am proud to say I have all their albums. "starless and bible black" being my favorite, of course.

 

[Jhengsman]

Man, the guy asked about getting prepared to play jazz, and asked what smooth jazz artists would be the place to start. That's why folks are saying they are so different. I don't care what the labels are necessarily, nor do I care to elevate one stylistic genre over another. But the two are not the same, and it doesn't matter if you want to call smooth jazz "jazz" or not. They are very different. Just because they both contain chord changes that are outside of diatonic norms, using extensions and such for extra color, and more complex melodies than perhaps one might find in pop music, doesn't mean that it's "jazz" in the truest sense of the word. This isn't a big deal I don't think.

Much of jazz involves walking basslines. Very little smooth jazz does. Just on that one point alone, how could working on smooth jazz as a bass player prepare one for playing jazz? Everything I've said in this thread is in reference to the OP's goals. If he wants to play jazz, then he needs to start learning all those basic standards that any jazz bassist would likely teach, things like Autumn Leaves, All the Things You Are, Blue in Green, or any of the endless number of 12-bar blues tunes. The listener needs to also immerse himself in jazz listening, starting with many of the "big" jazz albums...Kind of Blue, Birth of Cool, Blue Train, and on and on. Listening to Dave Coz, Wayman Tisdale or the Sax Pack and learning to play those bass lines isn't really going to help him.

This has nothing to do with genre bashing.

But then as many have said "jazz" is a very large tent. If by "jazz" the OP is thinking Horace Silver, The Crusaders, Ramsey Lewis, Les McCann, Joao Gilberto......so called smooth jazz as it is called this century may just be the ticket to start. After all in crawl, walk, run learning progression you won't start with Ornette Coleman, he would be the last stop.

 

[lucas vigor]

Very true. And though the one poster had an excellent point about learning walking bass lines, much can be learned from smooth jazz as it relates to trad jazz just in the types of chords used alone. And in the mean time, he would be learning some real funky bass lines that are generally not found in most rock, courtesy of monsters like Scott Ambush or Kim Stone.

If I had a polka musician who had never heard rock in any great amount tell me he wanted to eventually learn rock, I would not suggest RUSH "moving pictures" as the starting point. Nope. I would start him off with maybe some Stones, or some Creedence...and at least get him on the right page that way, instead of making his head explode!

When your ears are ready for Ornette Coleman, then you will enjoy it more. Or, you might end up like the bebop purists that wanted to kill him for using a plastic sax and not having a piano player!

 

[SteveC]

I think this is very telling - I never listen to music as background music. When I listen to music I am immersing myself in it; letting it take me where it will. I wouldn't denegrate music enough to render it to background status. That you would be comfortable relegating smooth jazz to that status speaks volumes regarding what many of us have been trying to get across here.

What is telling, your condescending attitude for music you don't like? Many "jazz" gigs are nothing more than background music. Most people don't "immerse" themselves in any music, let alone jazz. All i see you trying to get across it that "smooth jazz" isn't music. That's your opinion. around here with us less intellectual people, smooth jazz gets you gigs.

There have been other more well written responses to your response to me than this. It doesn't look like I'm alone in my thinking.

 

[SteveC]

Man, the guy asked about getting prepared to play jazz, and asked what smooth jazz artists would be the place to start. That's why folks are saying they are so different. I don't care what the labels are necessarily, nor do I care to elevate one stylistic genre over another. But the two are not the same, and it doesn't matter if you want to call smooth jazz "jazz" or not. They are very different. Just because they both contain chord changes that are outside of diatonic norms, using extensions and such for extra color, and more complex melodies than perhaps one might find in pop music, doesn't mean that it's "jazz" in the truest sense of the word. This isn't a big deal I don't think.

Much of jazz involves walking basslines. Very little smooth jazz does. Just on that one point alone, how could working on smooth jazz as a bass player prepare one for playing jazz? Everything I've said in this thread is in reference to the OP's goals. If he wants to play jazz, then he needs to start learning all those basic standards that any jazz bassist would likely teach, things like Autumn Leaves, All the Things You Are, Blue in Green, or any of the endless number of 12-bar blues tunes. The listener needs to also immerse himself in jazz listening, starting with many of the "big" jazz albums...Kind of Blue, Birth of Cool, Blue Train, and on and on. Listening to Dave Coz, Wayman Tisdale or the Sax Pack and learning to play those bass lines isn't really going to help him.

This has nothing to do with genre bashing.

The OP asked specifically about smooth jazz. Why did the 3rd response have to start with the genre bashing. There's a lot of great bass playing in smooth jazz. Just because it isn't a walking line doesn't mean it sucks.

 

[lucas vigor]

What is telling, your condescending attitude for music you don't like? Many "jazz" gigs are nothing more than background music. Most people don't "immerse" themselves in any music, let alone jazz. All i see you trying to get across it that "smooth jazz" isn't music. That's your opinion. around here with us less intellectual people, smooth jazz gets you gigs.

There have been other more well written responses to your response to me than this. It doesn't look like I'm alone in my thinking.

You are not alone. In fact, I like your style!

I have played "real" jazz in restaurant and private party gigs...and hardly anyone is paying attention. It's background music to them. Of course, we are up there enjoying ourselves...but we don't kid ourselves that the customers care. We see more enthusiasm once we stop playing and the DJ takes over with the dance music and top forty.

And NO, it's not that we sucked. One of my favorite live jazz albums ever is the Bill Evans Sunday at the village vanguard. A landmark, historical and epic jazz recording. On it, you can clearly hear the audience talking and clinking their wine glasses during the quieter moments, followed by lukewarm applause. And it is one of the last performances by Scott LaFaro. Basically, Bill Evans, at that moment is just background music.

 

[lucas vigor]

The OP asked specifically about smooth jazz. Why did the 3rd response have to start with the genre bashing. There's a lot of great bass playing in smooth jazz. Just because it isn't a walking line doesn't mean it sucks.

Yep. Few walking lines in Latin Jazz, either.

 

[SteveC]

You are not alone. In fact, I like your style!

I have played "real" jazz in restaurant and private party gigs...and hardly anyone is paying attention. It's background music to them. Of course, we are up there enjoying ourselves...but we don't kid ourselves that the customers care. We see more enthusiasm once we stop playing and the DJ takes over with the dance music and top forty.

And NO, it's not that we sucked. One of my favorite live jazz albums ever is the Bill Evans Sunday at the village vanguard. A landmark, historical and epic jazz recording. On it, you can clearly hear the audience talking and clinking their wine glasses during the quieter moments, followed by lukewarm applause. And it is one of the last performances by Scott LaFaro. Basically, Bill Evans, at that moment is just background music.

I knew there had to be more people who played gigs like this.

 

[Snarf]

Does anyone disagree jazz players can play smooth jazz?

Actually, I have known plenty of "jazz" players that can't play "smooth jazz." They're the drummers that never learned anything but swing, the sax players that eschew tone in favor of atonal blast-beating, the guitar players that don't know they can roll the tone knob up and plug in a delay pedal, the bassists that play only quarter notes, and the list goes on.

Of course, most traditional jazz players can play smooth jazz. But you need to know not just jazz, but funk and rock as well, since those are important parts to the genre. Can't put any one genre in a bubble and say it came from nothing.

In my experience, the only people that call themselves "jazz musicians" are amateurs. The real pros (talking about players here, not artists or singers) don't label themselves to the exclusion of all other genres. That goes for "rock musicians" and anything else, too.

Anyway, to the OP, I'm sorry your thread got so effed. But put the words "smooth" and "jazz" together and it's guaranteed to be a ****-storm.

 

[FretlessMainly]

Yes, your opinion is to me, meaningless.

I also noticed the Fripp quote in your sig. Crimson is one of my all time favorite bands. In fact, I am proud to say I have all their albums. "starless and bible black" being my favorite, of course.

I can't help but wonder that if I agreed with you, perhaps my opinion might be more meaningful to you.

Regarding Crimson, if you don't mind since it's off-topic, I'll send you a PM regarding the Fripp-approved "bootlegs" from the dgmlive website. Maybe you know about it; maybe not. Some real gems to be had there. And all profits go to the musicians who played on those recordings.

What is telling, your condescending attitude for music you don't like? Many "jazz" gigs are nothing more than background music. Most people don't "immerse" themselves in any music, let alone jazz. All i see you trying to get across it that "smooth jazz" isn't music. That's your opinion. around here with us less intellectual people, smooth jazz gets you gigs.

Look, there's music I like and there's music I don't like. I certainly don't think any less of you or anyone as a musician if they play a genre that I don't care for. Call it condescending; I call it "no time in life for what I don't care for." If you get gigs and it puts bread on your table, that's good and you've done well for yourself. And in no way do I consider smooth jazz "not music."

I have played "real" jazz in restaurant and private party gigs...and hardly anyone is paying attention. It's background music to them. Of course, we are up there enjoying ourselves...but we don't kid ourselves that the customers care. We see more enthusiasm once we stop playing and the DJ takes over with the dance music and top forty.

I've probably played over 100 of those gigs on double bass. Usually good money, often good food, and 99% of the people there don't give a crap. But we played standards because that's what we liked, and I was fortunate that it was a second job for me and the pianist, who still makes his living on music, insisted that we would stick with the "Standards with an Edge" philosophy and not play what we didn't want to play.

 

[ACalbass]

Actually, I have known plenty of "jazz" players that can't play "smooth jazz." They're the drummers that never learned anything but swing, the sax players that eschew tone in favor of atonal blast-beating, the guitar players that don't know they can roll the tone knob up and plug in a delay pedal, the bassists that play only quarter notes, and the list goes on.

Of course, most traditional jazz players can play smooth jazz. But you need to know not just jazz, but funk and rock as well, since those are important parts to the genre. Can't put any one genre in a bubble and say it came from nothing.

In my experience, the only people that call themselves "jazz musicians" are amateurs. The real pros (talking about players here, not artists or singers) don't label themselves to the exclusion of all other genres. That goes for "rock musicians" and anything else, too.

Anyway, to the OP, I'm sorry your thread got so effed. But put the words "smooth" and "jazz" together and it's guaranteed to be a ****-storm.

You got me there,and I was waiting for that.
Is that "real" jazz players are very limited then,correct?

I should have said jazz players are more prepared to play the style than others,after all,the style was made by them.