Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

Krelldog: your points are well taken, but let me elaborate on my previous comments. First, I think serious jazz buffs lack an enjoyment of "smooth jazz", rather than disrespecting the music as such. I do think that most long-term "serious" jazz listeners would disagree with your opinion that the top "smooth jazz" artists are among the "most talented musicians in the world". This may sound like hair-splitting, but I would posit that "smooth jazz" artists are highly competent instrumentalists rather than talented as jazz musicians. Most of the music played by "smooth jazz" artists tends to be quite formulaic, and lacking many of the fundamental characteristics that defines jazz. The truly great jazz improvisors are always striving to find unique ways to express themselves musically.

To use an analogy, let's think about cars. "Smooth jazz" artists are essentially the Ford Taurus's of jazz-flavored pop music, whereas world-caliber jazz artists are the Porsches or Ferraris. Jazz is, at its heart, about more than just technical competence -- it's about soul and passion, and about playing music in an intensely personal, improvised way that conveys something of yourself.

To be honest, there are a lot of "young lions" who are acknowledged as true jazz artists that still leave me totally cold -- Wynton Marsalis is perhaps the best example. Wynton knows more about the history of jazz than many experts, and he has superb mastery of his instrument and of jazz composition and its many forms. Wynton is, by any rational standard, an enormously talented jazz musician. Nevertheless, he is -- to me -- essentially a conservatory-trained musician who plays with very little "soul". Do I disrespect Wynton? No, I don't, but I have very little interest in listening to the vast majority of his recorded work.

We could start an entire new thread about the merits of various artists, and how they should be classified in terms of "school". For example, some of the newer vocalists being touted as "jazz singers" don't even belong in the same category as Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Sarah Vaughn, Carmen McRae, Betty Carter, Sheila Jordan, and Ernestine Anderson. Singers such as Jane Monheit and Patricia Barber may be talented vocalists, but it's a real stretch to call them "jazz singers". Monheit, Barber, and company are -- to my mind -- more properly classified in the group which includes singers such as Rosemary Clooney, Peggy Lee, and many of the female crooners of the 1940's. Many were fine artists on their own terms, but they weren't jazz singers.

This particular debate may continue for many more years. So let me close by reiterating the point in my first post: music is about what pleases you, not other people. If that weren't true, how else could one explain rap -- which isn't even music?

I would like to retract my"old tired winey stale"comment.Music is all about the passion and emotional effect it has on us personally.I saw Warren Hill preform locally at a small intimate club.It was nothing short of a religous experience.Nobody can tell me that it was shallow,or non involving.so I certainly can't sit here in good conscious and crack on something that might be near and dear to someone elses heart.Music has a way of evolving into different styles.Example Rock and Roll,can anyone compare Elvis and Neil Young.So why do the hard core Jazz buffs feel so insulted if someone compares Miles Davis and Rick Braun for example.The smooth jazz fans aren't being critical of the classic older Jazz.So why are they so thinned skin when it comes to smooth jazz.One last point:I am talking about artists such as Bob James,Kirk Whalum,Peter White,David Sanborn,Warren Hill,Rick Braun etc.I am not making a blanket statement,and I don't consider the pop artists that get mixed in to be smooth jazz.Lighten up,if it bothers you that much don't listen.But don't criticize the millions of fans who enjoy it.

Musicians aren't good or bad, they're sucessful and unsucessful.

Jazz improvisation is exotic. Its appreciation is an acquired taste.

Smooth jazz gets no respect because it is boring.

Smooth Jazz is to Jazz as Bubblegum is to Rock. Donny and Marie and the Rolling Stones can both be found in the Rock section but we all know who the real rockers are. Now there are real Jazz musicians creating comtemporary music who are legitimate jazz musicians i.e. Dave Douglas, Greg Osby-but they play sophisticated technically challenging music which is just the oppositie of what smooth jazz is. If you like smooth jazz however enjoy it and perhaps you will learn the difference and graduate to the real deal.

Krelldog, I can assure you that I am not a close minded idiot. You will note that in my previous post I did not insult anyone personally and I think in any meaningful discussion it is pointless to do so and is definately not a goo devate method.

As to your offer of burning me a cd of this smooth jazz, believe me I wouldn't have entered this discussion if I hadn't already been exposed to much of this dribble before.

I have spent my life studying, teaching and playing music. Mostly Jazz and the Saxophone. I come to this argument understing the history, structure andwonder of Jazz as an art form. When I was younger I heard some fusion-smooth bands, I had some albums like the Yellowjackets and Spyro Gyra etc... but they quickly fell by the wayside. Being a player and a teacher I am constantle exposed to a wide variety of music I'll hear things, Warren Hill, Dave Koz and more Kenny G than I think is healthy. I know this music and that is why my comments are so strong.

You enjoy this music and I don't have a problem with that. I am only hoping to show you that there is so much more and by liming your understanding of instrumental adn improvisational music to this genre of smooth that you are missing out.

Do I really sound closed minded to you?

This is not a debate over the merits of new Jazz and old Jazz, because smooth jazz does not in any way represent the evolution of Jazz in the modern era. Again our argument is one of classification and the disgust of real Jazz fans is this calling this instrumental pop music Jazz is incorrect and creates confusion as to what Jazz is.

As to your radio station playing a lot of smooth and not much Jazz. I would hate to think that we would judge the merits of music based on record sales and radio ratings. Commercial radio has never been a way to judge the merits of music as an art. Sure it's popular the radio station makes money selling commercials, McDonalds is unbelievably popular are we going to argue that they serve gourmet cuisine ? Smooth jazz and Big Macs are popular for the same reason, they are both bland, cheap and predictable.

I do not mean to insult you but rather I implore you to find the real depth in music. By putting this smooth instrumental pop on such a pedestal you are showing that you have not really gained an understanding of Jazz beyond the tip of your tongue. It's flavours are more complex, richer and different from what you are used to, some of it you may want spit right out.

Ultimately you will find real Jazz to have great depth and real feeling, not the cheap pulling of the heartstrings of a manipulative hollywood movie, but real soul that will slowly work it's way into you and enrich your life.

Now my friend I can make you a CD of some of the most wonderful music in the world and if you manage not to spit it out you will find yourself understanding and appreciating the art of music.