Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

I agree that the race component is, if not entirely, mostly irrelevant to the debate about "contemporary" jazz. I say "mostly" irrelevant, because race has been a formidable force in the history of jazz; obviously. It is extremely difficult to discuss the subject in our politically-correct society.

Coltrane 1, I agree with much of what you say, but not all; and certainly not as concerns the relevance of race issues in the current music/jazz environment. I will try to express some thoughts/feelings in a way that, if they are to have any real significance at all, will surely rub some the wrong way. For my inability to express those thoughts in a way that is totally inoffensive to all, I apologize. But, I know where my heart lies. So, my apology only goes so far. Anyway, here goes:

The dirty little secret, and one that we white guys are too often unwilling to truly embrace, is that the greatest jazz artists have been black; end of story. There have been a few notable exceptions, but there is no question in my mind that the true innovators in jazz, and those that did the best job of expressing, through their music, the deepest depths of the human condition, were black artists. Not because blacks, as a group, have superior expressiveness ability, but because of the other part of the dirty little secret: the depth of the pain that blacks were submitted to by a predominantly white culture. Good art is always a reflection/expression of what is happening in a society, and we all know that there were some pretty terrible things going on in our society, leading up to the birth of jazz. But, and this is a big "but", that was then, and this is now.

Society evolves, race issues have evolved, and jazz has evolved. Contemporary (current) jazz, some of it clearly valid, simply doesn't have the relevance that music that expressed the social/racial turmoil at the turn of the 20th century, through the era of the civil-rights movement did. How could it? When we now live in a society which, in spite of all the cries of doom and gloom, is still one in which there is a tremendous amount of wealth, and the members in it's lowest economic strata are still able to have a lifestyle that is the envy of the vast majority of the rest of the world. We tend to lose perspective. Is it any wonder that much of the art expresses a kind of vapidness, and lack of true emotional complexity?

I don't buy that racism plays an adverse role in the success of black contemporary jazz artists. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I know several young white artists trying to establish themselves in the NYC jazz scene, who feel that black players get preferential treatment from producers/promoters. It wasn't long ago that Wynton Marsalis got some legal heat for trying to replace the white members of his band. Is racism dead? Of course not; probably never will be.

We are all racist. It is programmed into our genes. It is what we as individuals do with that fact that makes the difference. We strive to be more enlightened individuals by recognizing our flaws. But, losing perspective, and using race as justification for lack of self-reliance is as bad as active racism itself. We have a black president, and every ethnic color is well represented in every position of power in our society. I would prefer to celebrate that new reality, than keep looking back. And maybe then we can get to the point that we can freely state that we don't like a particular Obama policy, without fear of being called racist. Or that I prefer Tom Harrell's playing to Terrence Blanchard's without fear of the same.

Re the success of the likes of Kenny G, Chris Botti, etc. In the scheme of things, does it really matter?

Frogman, brave post. I applaud you for going there.

It's no secret that blacks excel at most anything rhythmically. That's obvious on the dance floor, the basketball court, or when it comes to creating jazz.

Wynton Marsalis holds a minority position. The playing field isn't established from his position in NYC, but rather from the board room. 99.9% of those calling promotional shots are of course white. Wynton's experienced great criticism for he's perceived by many as having made decisions that attempted to level the playing field.

Race is still a true issue today as it was 70 years ago. It's believed by many that white writers, which are by far the majority, tend to promote less talented white talent.

Yes we have a racially half black president who is also half white, and whose childhood experience was not one born of the black community. That's been well documented. The experience of most blacks in our society don't reflect the life Obama experienced. Most were not sheltered from racism, and know first hand about racism. But in America, if you're 25% black and 75% white you're still a black man if your skin pigmentation reveals anything other than white characteristics.

I strongly disagree we're all genetically wired to be racist. Most blacks aren't raised to hate or distrust whites. But being black in America is something blacks have to come to terms with very early in life. Still today. That doesn't make blacks a victim it's simply the reality of being black in this society. One merely has to attempt to hail a cab in NYC to see how far this society has come in terms of if it's acceptable to be black in America.

Having said all that, there have been many a ground breaking white artist that have produced major impacts on jazz. Bill Evans, Stan Getz, Jim Hall, the list is endless. But as you say it's obvious if one began a stat' sheet and started tallying the number of sax players, piano players, trumpet players, guitar players, blacks have been highly successful as being some of the more prominent players throughout history, in spite of the obvious racial issues they've had to overcome.

I'd think for most the music trumps the race of the individual who created it. I repeatedly return to listen to Jim Hall's Concierto De Aranjuez not because he's a white player but because it's a superb recording. Same goes for Miles' Kind of Blue.

Jazz music knows no color. It's the industry seeking the 'next great white hope' from the board room with the belief that a hot white player would yield greater returns than a hot black player that creates issues for new artists being judged based upon their skin color rather than their talent.

For some supid reason it takes too much time for anyone to get the respect they deserve when playing jazz or blues. It also took time for the old standby's to get any respect in the day and we still have not heard from all of the greats never mind the contemporary artists. IMHO.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm probably the only full time professional jazz musician (yes, they do exist :-) reading this thread. Here is our perspective on "Smooth" jazz in a step by step explanation.

The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple. Most of us think that a whole lot of smooth jazz is just a boring commercial gimmick that has nothing to do with what we define as jazz music. I'm not saying it's good or bad music, I'm saying that most of it should be called smooth rock, or better yet, smooth R & B.

Combine that idea with the fact that all it takes is one hack to get a ton of credit and press, and all of a sudden the whole category looks bad.

It seems that a lot (not all) of what is called smooth jazz combines the weakest grooves from hip hop or R & B, with some pretty mediocre improvising. If were just called light rock (like it used to be), then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the improvising topic would be a non-issue for the genre, and it wouldn't have to prove itself as an art form. It would just be another form of entertainment/music.

Now, here is why Jazz musicians in particular get prickly about the use of the word "JAZZ" in smooth jazz, which I feel is the only problem with the genre. Really. Stylistically, it's as valid as anything, but associating it with jazz probably hurts it more then helps it.

First, here's a disclaimer. I've played my fair share of smooth gigs as an electric bassist (I also play a ton of acoustic bass. Actually, I just made a record using Scott LaFaro's bass, if you're interested in such things). Personally, I feel that the style is a lot more fun to play than it is to listen to, but I have heard the style done at a high level and really thought it was great. Musicians are quirky in what they hear in music sometimes.

Yes, most of us think smooth jazz is silly, but not from a stuck up place in our hearts. You see, most of us spend our lives developing our improvisational skills to a very high level (for little reward, I might add). It becomes a language that is VERY complex on so many levels. It's an art form that has complexity and also spirit. To do that, we basically forsake a normal life of stability and finances, from a traditional standpoint. Many of my neighbors and non-musician friends have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. They can't relate at all. Then I tell them that I'm also an audiophile and they look at me like I have the plague, but that's another thread (and support group).

I'm not crying poverty, mind you. I'm just saying that we don't go into it for the money. Because we don't go into it for the money, some of us get very protective of the word jazz.

Like I said before, to say that you are jazz musician is to also say that you are striving to be a complete master of your instrument. I don't necessarily hear that coming out of a lot of smooth horns. You, as a non-jazz musician, might not be able to hear that distinction as easily as a professional jazz musician. Not's not a slam or a dis, it's just one small explanation why we musicians sometimes might not appreciate another player.

Anyway, the true masters can improvise in a way that would appeal to your average non-jazz listener as well as make us (jazz musicians) stare in wonder at the way they can weave through complicated chord changes. Look at Stan Getz and Pat Metheny, for example. They've had commercial success and appealed to millions, but they're also highly respected by the people who can hear into the mysterious world of improvisation. Heck, you can even say that Getz was the original smooth jazz artist. Mass appeal with a pop sensibility, but man, he could also improvise! And what a sound!

I'm not going to name names- I'm to focused on working on my own weaknesses to worry about other cats, but I've heard a lot of what I guess are commercially successful smooth jazz artists and thought that their improvising and command of their instruments were lacking. That's a big reason why some smooth cats don't get respect from straight ahead players. We can hear what they need to be working on, while some non-musicians might just hear a good back beat that makes them want to dance, so they think its great.

There are a lot of people combining jazz with back beats and groove, creating what I guess is called smooth jazz, at a very high level. Check out any Herbie Hancock, late Stan Getz, almost any Pat Metheny, Chick Corea Electrik Band... Heck, how about Groover Washington? There's a cat who could play circles around Kenny G AND still keep his music easily defined as smooth jazz! A friend of mine who plays with Wynton was just talking about how he was into Groover when he was coming up (we were teaching a master class). Then he played a blues, one chorus as Charlie Parker, then he switch to Groover. It was awesome! But I digress.

These are a few of the people that are respected my jazz musicians, if that even matters to you. When we use a blanket statement like "smooth jazz isn't real jazz", now you know why we say it. To say that you're a jazz musician is to say that you have a certain level of mastery over your horn, and we can hear when you don't.

Personally, I try not to use blanket statements like that, but a lot of my brethren aren't like that.

Ultimately though, just like audio equipment, what ever you're happy with is what's best for you :-)

-Phil
www.philpalombi.com

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I'm probably the only full time professional jazz musician (yes, they do exist :-) reading this thread. Here is our perspective on "Smooth" jazz in a step by step explanation.

The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple. Most of us think that a whole lot of smooth jazz is just a boring commercial gimmick that has nothing to do with what we define as jazz music. I'm not saying it's good or bad music, I'm saying that most of it should be called smooth rock, or better yet, smooth R & B.

Combine that idea with the fact that all it takes is one hack to get a ton of credit and press, and all of a sudden the whole category looks bad.

It seems that a lot (not all) of what is called smooth jazz combines the weakest grooves from hip hop or R & B, with some pretty mediocre improvising. If were just called light rock (like it used to be), then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because the improvising topic would be a non-issue for the genre, and it wouldn't have to prove itself as an art form. It would just be another form of entertainment/music.

Now, here is why Jazz musicians in particular get prickly about the use of the word "JAZZ" in smooth jazz, which I feel is the only problem with the genre. Really. Stylistically, it's as valid as anything, but associating it with jazz probably hurts it more then helps it.

First, here's a disclaimer. I've played my fair share of smooth gigs as an electric bassist (I also play a ton of acoustic bass. Actually, I just made a record using Scott LaFaro's bass, if you're interested in such things). Personally, I feel that the style is a lot more fun to play than it is to listen to, but I have heard the style done at a high level and really thought it was great. Musicians are quirky in what they hear in music sometimes.

Yes, most of us think smooth jazz is silly, but not from a stuck up place in our hearts. You see, most of us spend our lives developing our improvisational skills to a very high level (for little reward, I might add). It becomes a language that is VERY complex on so many levels. It's an art form that has complexity and also spirit. To do that, we basically forsake a normal life of stability and finances, from a traditional standpoint. Many of my neighbors and non-musician friends have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. They can't relate at all. Then I tell them that I'm also an audiophile and they look at me like I have the plague, but that's another thread (and support group).

I'm not crying poverty, mind you. I'm just saying that we don't go into it for the money. Because we don't go into it for the money, some of us get very protective of the word jazz.

Like I said before, to say that you are jazz musician is to also say that you are striving to be a complete master of your instrument. I don't necessarily hear that coming out of a lot of smooth horns. You, as a non-jazz musician, might not be able to hear that distinction as easily as a professional jazz musician. Not's not a slam or a dis, it's just one small explanation why we musicians sometimes might not appreciate another player.

Anyway, the true masters can improvise in a way that would appeal to your average non-jazz listener as well as make us (jazz musicians) stare in wonder at the way they can weave through complicated chord changes. Look at Stan Getz and Pat Metheny, for example. They've had commercial success and appealed to millions, but they're also highly respected by the people who can hear into the mysterious world of improvisation. Heck, you can even say that Getz was the original smooth jazz artist. Mass appeal with a pop sensibility, but man, he could also improvise! And what a sound!

I'm not going to name names- I'm to focused on working on my own weaknesses to worry about other cats, but I've heard a lot of what I guess are commercially successful smooth jazz artists and thought that their improvising and command of their instruments were lacking. That's a big reason why some smooth cats don't get respect from straight ahead players. We can hear what they need to be working on, while some non-musicians might just hear a good back beat that makes them want to dance, so they think its great.

There are a lot of people combining jazz with back beats and groove, creating what I guess is called smooth jazz, at a very high level. Check out any Herbie Hancock, late Stan Getz, almost any Pat Metheny, Chick Corea Electrik Band... Heck, how about Groover Washington? There's a cat who could play circles around Kenny G AND still keep his music easily defined as smooth jazz! A friend of mine who plays with Wynton was just talking about how he was into Groover when he was coming up (we were teaching a master class). Then he played a blues, one chorus as Charlie Parker, then he switch to Groover. It was awesome! But I digress.

These are a few of the people that are respected my jazz musicians, if that even matters to you. When we use a blanket statement like "smooth jazz isn't real jazz", now you know why we say it. To say that you're a jazz musician is to say that you have a certain level of mastery over your horn, and we can hear when you don't.

Personally, I try not to use blanket statements like that, but a lot of my brethren aren't like that.

Ultimately though, just like audio equipment, what ever you're happy with is what's best for you :-)

-Phil
www.philpalombi.com