Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

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

Phil ..

Spot on and I'm in full agreement , i felt the same way when in years past, People would mention Kenny -G and jazz in the same sentence. :)

My father was a trumpet player in his earlier years and growing up we were surrounded by Jazz, Ernie watts, Oscar Peterson, of course Getz, Brubeck, et al ..

I must admit i could never get into Miles and i do purchase/listen to "smooth Jazz" ......

Regards,

Phil ,

You should do your next album in the house, the sound, natural ambiance and the humanity of it all could be felt thru that utube clip, pleasant surprise indeed.

+10