Jazz-minded Dopers, your wisdom is needed! I run this Livejournal community and am very proud of it. The only problem is that it’s opened me up to volleys of annoyance from naysayers who claim I’m “forgetting the real jazz” or something like that. They then launch into extended monologues about Count Basie, Ella Fitzgerald and/or Art Tatum.
I would like to enage these me-detractors in some form of intelligent, jazz-related conversation but they seem to hate me from the get-go for “disrespecting” what they refer to as, again, “the real jazz.” I am confused by this, as I wasn’t aware that there were any borders of reality governing certain musical genres.
What, I ask you, does it mean for something to be “real jazz?” Empirically, I can figure out from what they say that the recording has to be at least forty years old, but that’s all that is readily apparent.
You’re not marketing the site as anything other than Smooth Jazz, which it is (according to my cursory listening). I don’t see what the Jazz people have to complain about. Now if you were positioning yourself as Jazz, as such, I’d see the problem. But Smooth Jazz is a well-recognized genre and those who don’t care for it can steer clear easily enough.
masonite (a jazz snob who tries so hard not to be)
I’m not that familiar with the smooth jazz genre, but that won’t stop me from offering an opinion.
I don’t really think that “smooth jazz” musicians are grounded in the tradition of jazz. I don’t hear the influence of the big names in bop or swing: Herbie Hancock, Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon, etc. much less Louie Armstrong (a possible exception is Bill Evans…also perhaps some of the latin jazz releases from the likes of George Shearing, Charlie Byrd, etc). They’re coming more from the long and distinguished history of pop instrumentals, artists like Mantovanni, 1001 Strings, stuff that has traditionally been considered “elevator music.” I suspect many of them also have backgrounds in classical music - not that many jazz musicians didn’t - but I think that they therefore are less apt to emphasize the notion of swing or improvization.
That’s not to take anything away from the genre smooth jazz at all, but just to point out that smooth jazz is not simply a sub-genre of the traditional jazz, but something apart from it (though there’s some cross-breeding, no doubt).
I’m not sure what the question is. Are you saying you don’t hear any difference between smooth jazz like Acoustic Alchemy and modern day jazz-without-any-modifiers, e.g. Dave Holland or Joe Lovano? Or are you saying Count Basie wasn’t jazz?
Like masonite says, smooth jazz and just-plain jazz really are different genres (at the very least as much as soft rock and hard rock.) It’s not surprising that someone who likes one might not like the other, though there’s certainly no reason for them to be jerks about it. I’m not sure you need to say anything to these people other than, “Well, I guess you must not like smooth jazz then.”
Perhaps the people complaining are the same ones who watched the Ken Burns Jazz documentary and approved of him blowing off all jazz since Coltrane.
It’s an odd sort of reverse racism: jazz is inherently American black roots music, and therefore whites - and especially non-American whites - who play it cannot have the same connection to the music.
But Acoustic Alchemy is a very fine band no matter what category it is placed in or what its antecedents are. And that’s really all that counts in the end.
What an odd thing to say…it would be a good topic for debate in another thread, methinks.
Agreed. Ottmar Liebert is one of the most talented guitar players out there, as are the two guys in Alchemy. I do have a problem with the term “smooth” jazz. I think much traditional jazz is pretty damn smooth as it is. Maybe “mayonnaise jazz” would be a better term?
Seriously though, I think there is a lot of snobbery involved on the part of many old time jazz musicians and afficianados. I read an absolutely scathing article a few years ago in regard to Kenny G by a lot of the younger proponents of old time jazz. It was obvious that there is a great deal of resentment by these people toward musicians whose talent and abilities they regard as inferior yet who still become very successful commercially. They feel that there are many wonderfully talented, heavily experienced old-school jazz musicians that are never given a chance because of the success of these lesser lights (in their opinion) who acheive their success by developing and recording music with a more mainstream appeal.
See, that’s just wrong and what leads to a lot of the conflict between old-school jazz and smooth jazz. I completely agree with the basic premise that there are a lot of talented musicians doing smooth jazz that deserve respect for their chops and technical skills.
The key issue - and there is an older thread about “what is jazz” or something that I can’t seem to find - is “what IS jazz?”
If you think jazz is chords and melodies that are more complex and sophisticated than standard rock or pop - which is entirely legitimate and logical - then smooth jazz fits in perfectly. Done.
However (a “but” by any other name) - if you think jazz is, as was discussed in that earlier thread I can’t find - more about figuring out the rules of music just so you can break them - then smooth jazz doesn’t work. All smooth jazz is by that definition is pop music with a slightly more sophisticated set of rules. By than definition, it isn’t “jazz” by any stretch and a “true” jazz fan - who appreciates the rule-breaking that the greats did - is offended at the thought that this form of pop music would lay some claim to the term. The people who hate smooth jazz have a legitimate gripe - but that doesn’t mean anyone has to agree with them.
I am not saying either perspective is correct (I have an opinion, but that isn’t the point - I am trying to lay out both sides as I understand them), I am saying that there is a fundamental difference in opinion - one group defines jazz by sophistication of structure, the other by intent and rule-breaking. And there is no way they will ever see eye to eye…
