Any smooth jazz fans out there?

Wow, what a thread. My longest yet !! Thanks everyone for your support and apologies. I honestly never intended to offend anyone and I can understand where the purists are coming from. Believe me, I don't like all of the so called smooth jazz (or should we call in electric jazz). I don't care for the use of drum machines for example. I know it's part of it but I do seek out those who use live drummers for example.

I was just reaching out to those on the forum who also like the same artists to start a harmless and friendly chat. Perhaps learn a thing or two. (For example, I didn't know how influential Bob Mintzer has been and I've been a fan of the Yellow Jackets for decades. Thanks Frogman). That's all. My apologies too if I came on a bit strong. Sorry.

On a happier note, how many folks here can say they saw Horace Silver live? I did back in the 1980s at the Blue Note in NYC. Others I've seen live include Art Blakey, Ron Carter, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Clifford Jordan, etc. Saw them all live back in the day.

No such thing as "smooth jazz". It's a misnomer. There is real jazz, and then there's everything else. This so-called smooth jazz falls in the latter category. They started out calling it "fusion", which was an amalgamation of jazz, rock, and R&B. That seemed to be more correct. Even Miles was out there leading the way with "Jack Johnson", "In a Silent Way" and "Bitches Brew". Charles Lloyd, Chick Corea, Eddie Harris, John Klemmer, and Herbie started getting "electrified". It was experimental and pushing the envelope. Then the Larry's came along - Coryell and Carleton ... the Yellow Jackets, Spyro Gyra, Jeff Lorber (and "Fusion" remember them) ... they all started with there own brands of creativity.

I've seen/heard everyone on this list live - with the exception of Jeff Lorber. I like listening to a lot of different kinds of music ... straight ahead jazz, "hard bop", big band, fusion, R&B, gospel, and classical. To me, artists like Dave Grusin, Four Play, Joe Sample, Lee Ritenour, David Sanborn, The Yellow Jackets, and Spyro Gyra all bring something to the table.

Where things started to get really diluted was with Kenny G, and his mall/elevator music that was selling off the charts! Now, all of a sudden you get people saying they like this new brand of "smooth jazz". Then came the Candy Dolfers, Rick Brauns, and Richard Elliots with their syrupy, watered down, everybody-sounds-the-same kind of dribble that apparently appeals to the masses ...(which is the reason that real jazz artists never made any money unless they "crossed over". Think Charlie Parker or Wes Montgomery with "strings"). Put another way, if it's a commercial success, chances are it ain't real jazz.

Well that's my two cents. Have a great weekend, and happy listening to whatever it is that stirs your soul.

Strateahed, a cogent analysis of the scene and of Kenny G as a transitional figure. In an interview he once admitted that he mostly practices in front of a bathroom mirror-- certainly the best place for Mr. G to stroke his instrument.

Since everything from the Mahavishnu Orchestra to the Rippingtons gets called "fusion" the term really has no descriptive value. At least w/ "smooth jazz" you can generally expect some really derivative melted velveeta and miracle whip sax tones and some phoned in time signatures. Still quite a few generic dime a dozen records don't neatly fit into a smooth jazz box... tons of great players like Dave Liebman, George Duke, Jan Garbarek and David Murray have made some sappy predictable records that aim for a piece of the lowest common denominator... somehow these guys and many others haven't often been branded as smooth jazzers. When the stuff starts getting called smooth there's often a Pat Boone covers Little Richard syndrome going on. So far on the thread I don't think anyone has said "Joe must like to eat cat turds and his mom must be his sister because he likes "smooth jazz". The personal attacks seem to be primarily coming from thin skinned posters who aren't as well informed as they perceive themselves to be. If someone wants to say Ken Vandermark just makes random noise and I say Bob Mintzer, (who might be one of the nicest people you'd ever meet) does not have a unique voice as a player and has not advanced the vocabulary of his instrument or any area of music one iota.... at least we're talking about music and not exchanging personal insults. Truth be known, there are probably hundreds of records that we both like a lot. If you still wanna call names though... knock yourself out, it's not going to bother me, (four letter words are way more accurate than completely off the mark words that end in -ist).

I can see that further discussion about the need for a certain amount of respect and decorum are probably pointless. Too bad. But I stand by my comments re the inappropriateness, on this forum, of calling someone else's musical taste crap. I don't consider the OP's reaction to having his musical tastes called crap, to mean he is thin skinned; at all.

Duanegoosen, if any musician that "does not have a unique voice as a player and has not advanced the vocabulary of his instrument or any area of music one iota..." can thus be called crap, which is what you are suggesting, we have just defined music elitism; which was my point. I hope we can agree that there are many great players that while not necessarily advancing the vocabulary of their instruments, still produce terrific, valid work. I am sincerely very curious as to what you think David Murray has contributed to the vocabulary of the tenor saxophone (I won't even touch his bass clarinet playing), that in absolute terms, someone like Bob Mintzer has not. BTW, while I admit (and never suggested otherwise) that Mintzer is not one of the great innovators on the tenor saxophone, his arranging style has a very distinct voice. I am also, honestly, VERY curious about what recorded work there is by Liebman "that is sappy and predictable, and aim(s) for a piece of the lowest common denominator..." I am not aware of anything that does not have musical integrity. But I don't claim to have heard everything he has done. Since you are so well informed, I would appreciate the info.

Meaningless little squabbles aside, what is undeniable and far more meanigful, is the power of music to create such strong opinions in listeners. Our chosen musical favorites become a very personal matter, and cause us all to sometimes lose a certain amount of objectivity. IMO, when we become so invested in the pursuit of an ideal (based on our personal standards), to the extent that we lose the ability to be sensitive to others' viewpoints (however less sophisticated we may think that viewpoint is), we lose the ability to appreciate everything that Music's very essence has to offer. And our "more informed" viewpoint actually becomes a liability, not an asset.