Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

This debate goes far beyond simply soothing ones "mood" or preference for music.

Peaceful coexistence is fabulous and the ideal. In an ideal world every individual would have a fair and equal opportunity to develop themselves and their art form.

A musician, like any other artist, lives to create and perfect their art.

It is in that spirit I suggest any actual true discussion of "smooth" vs. classic jazz cannot be fully discussed unless acknowledging the impact the component of race has had upon jazz since its inception.

The most direct way to both fully understand and examine the "smooth" vs. classic debate is to examine the component that truly fuels this debate for the working professional musician.

So often there are those among us, whatever their motives, who attempt to rewrite history. Granted, there were cultural issues afoot that weighed upon so called "classic" jazz during the period of its creation. Historically, from the turn of the century forward, jazz was labeled and degraded as the 'devils music'. A plethora of other well known negative labels not worth repeating were attached to it in an attempt to dismiss both its artistic merit, and the contribution of those who created it. Jazz has an established history of many writers attempting to derail jazz, and therefore the public's wide acceptance of the music.

70 years ago there was resentment among a vast majority of players and creators of jazz, so many of which at the time of the big band era who couldn't find regular work. It is felt by many of todays current music scene that same resentment is fueled today by writer's who promote new and less talented white players which many feel don't possess real talent, while obvious talented new black players struggle to make a living with their art for lack of equal exposure. This division does not end there. Some even go so far as to believe a music that was born of slavery, and the black american cultural experience, has been in effect, '"taken over" by a society that has now accepted the music as an art form without recognizing the contribution of those who created the art form.

Ironically enough, it may come as a surprise to some that jazz preceded baseball by almost a decade by breaking the color barrier. Black players were integrating white bands years before Jackie Robinson put on a Dodgers uniform. I repeat, it was jazz music, that went against an established cultural norm when it wasn't socially acceptable to have a black player in an all white band.

Bebop didn't just result from talented players like Parker, Gillespie, etc., as a natural course of evolution of the music. Many believe bebop was a result of struggling artists attempting to take jazz to a higher level of technical expertise in order to distinguish themselves from less talented and working players. In other words, if you could play bop you were distinguished from those that were working yet less talented. There was a resentment among the talented players of yesteryear. This same resentment is alive today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate.

Many believe the racial dynamics that were an undercurrent of jazz 70 years ago are alive and well today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate. And there is a resentment of those who play this music at the level of an art form, for they are the true keepers of the flame that will keep this music alive.

But for those that know music, from a technical perspective, there is no debate for there exists no true comparison between both genres.

Some truth to your comment, Coltrane1, but I think youre forgetting the impact the industry has on whether youre perceived as traditional or smooth jazz. Talent doesnt seem to count for as much as what the producers and marketing execs think your place in the scheme of things is. Are you saleable seems to count more, rightly or wrongly. A very talented musician who thinks he is striving to be perceived as a more "serious" jazz artist may be pigeonholed by the industry as "smooth" jazz. Does that make him less talented than the artists who are put by the industry into the "serious jazz" category? The artist will get airplay when and where the executives think he or she should, and that is a little bit (but not by much) different than it used to be. The thread was why doesnt contemprorary jazz get more respect, and I think at this point in time most acknowledge black musicians' contributions and struggles. I've been a musician for a long time, classically trained from when I was 7 as well as self taught on contemporary music, and I find the comment about "for those who know music" very elitist. Are you saying that those you consider "less knowledgeable" cannot make a determination about what type of jazz they prefer at any given time?

Interesting thread. But the true question should be; Why Doesn't JAZZ Get Any Respect?! When was the last time you saw a Jazz segment on an awards show? Where are all the Jazz stations on radio? Why are Jazz clubs so hard to find? IMO Jazz can be compared to Classical in that it's barely being exposed to the youth and that results in a music that's fanbase continues to dwindle with each passing generation. I find that the majority of Jazz discussed here AND at jazz sites I hang at almost always are discussing music played decades ago. So on top of an uncaring general public, the people that DO enjoy the genre are usually digging music by artists that are dead. I'd never deny the greatness of classic Jazz, but the difficulty in being a successful musician playing Jazz was also one of the primary reasons "Smooth" flourished as it did. How else can you explain people like Herbie Mann, Michael Brecker, and Sonnie Fortune making records featuring electronic beatboxes? It's a sad state of affairs but I'm not concerned for myself, I know what I like and I'm not worried about 'scratching my itch' anytime during my lifetime. But my 12-yr old niece doesn't understand vinyl, certainly doesn't get large audio rigs, and can't name a single Jazz artist. What's it gonna be like 50 yrs from now?

And if, like me, you have a true passion for sub-genres like Latin Jazz or Fusion.....fuhgedaboudit!!!

I'm not buying the racial component as the root of the jazz vs. smooth jazz debate.

Black/White race relations infuses virtually every aspect of American history and the evolution of jazz is a prime example. Jazz is not the only area where the general public has marveled that a white performer can competently do what any number of black performers excel at. And it's a fact that the level of difficulty and artistry involved in creating jazz is not fully appreciated. Witness that Wynton Marsalis has dedicated his professional life to trying to get that respect.

With all that as backdrop at some point jazz evolved and became a non-exclusively black music style. I'm not sure when it happened, but at some point in the last generation or so it became a toss up whether a really good and inventive jazz musician was black or white. To take the point even further, that musician may not even be American. Traditional jazz will always be a form of black music no matter what the race of the musicians, but some parts of jazz have moved beyond that border. And it's not as if the border is clearly demarcated. (It's easier for me to see it in rock music since rock is a simple music form. The Beatles playing "Long Tall Sally" are white musicians playing rock which is a black music form. The Beatles playing "A Day In the Life" are still playing rock, but it's not derived from black music, which is not to say it is completely divorced from.) At some point the concept of jazz became an international music form that while based in black music is not entirely anchored to it. People observed this as far back as the Miles Davis/Gil Evans collaborations.

In many ways smooth jazz is to jazz what early rock was to R&B. Just compare Chuck Berry's guitar work to T-Bone Walker's. In the end it's not so much about the ethnicity of the musicians as it is about the that of the audience they are appealing to, which in turn is about the color of money.

MrMitch, it's a given that white record exec's have always called the shots concerning talent, promotion, production. I eluded to that in earlier comments regarding 'packaged goods' being bought and sold in the dumming down of a society. Profit trumps art, but generally only always. This is America after all.

I've addressed very specific and detailed reasons why 'smooth' does not gain the respect of an educated classic jazz listener. I've offered cultural, social, and political components that I feel all contribute to why smooth has not nor will it ever reach the level of an art form. It's canned "jazz" targeted for the masses. Exec's do the same thing with pop.

I agree to disagree with you regarding education and listening. There's nothing "elitist" about it. Either one has some idea of what they've just heard or they're clueless. I don't see how suggesting educating oneself about rudimentary elements of music makes one an elitist.

For example, let's examine your acknowledged specialty, classical music.

One is better equipped to appreciate a Bach or Beethoven fugue if they've some idea what a fugue is. That's all I'm suggesting. Rudimentary education of musical elements better equips the listener of processing and understanding the classical music they're listening to. Without it, it's blind listening. Of course one could really go all out and take a classical music appreciation course at most community colleges and learn a lot about classical music they're not going to discover on their own by flipping 33's.

I'm not suggesting one has to have a degree in jazz theory to understand jazz. But a basic education of musical elements empowers the listener with a greater insight into what they're hearing.

I'm saying the less knowledgeable can choose to remain less knowledgeable, or not. Education is always an invitation. Either one has the calling or not.

Only a fool would suggest what someone "should" or "should not" be listening to. People listen to what they enjoy. But until one makes the choice to understand that a diminished 5th is simply an enharmonic spelling of an augmented 4th, which is the same as a tritone, then they're clueless when a jazz artist is talking about tritone substitutions. This is about as basic a jazz terminology as jazz gets, and it's commonplace knowledge among listeners who've not studied music to any great degree.

Mrmitch, I've a question you're perfectly qualified to answer.

You're a classically trained musician whose dedicated years to the study of classical music. So if a listener believes all classical music sounds alike how would you go about educating them that no, all classical music is not alike? Of course you'd assuredly point out the many different periods of classical that are distinctly different from one another throughout time, i.e., baroque, classical, romantic, eras etc. Perhaps you'd be offended if someone equated a commonplace easy listening elevator music to a Brahms concerto. But what's the difference, all I hear are violins in both pieces? The point is, the better equipped one is to define what they're hearing, the better equipped are they to determine what their true preference is. As I mentioned before, I've nothing against smooth for it's responsible for attracting a certain percentage of the more curious to classical jazz. But to equate smooth with classic jazz sounds foolish for it's not on the same level harmonically or technically. Anyone suggesting smooth and classical jazz differences aren't worthy of distinction does not understand jazz or music.

But I've an open mind and welcome hearing why I'm completely wrong.