Origins of Smooth Jazz -- Not a surprise

[Dan Gould]

And is "smooth jazz" only about black musicians?

No, but I saw Boney James get huge applause for winning at some music award show broadcast on BET.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

And as for the errors (or not) of the opening quote, it all depends on how you look at it. Of course the "Smooth jazz" tag had not been coined in the 70s yet (and the way I remember it a lot of that brand of music marketed under the "fusion" tag sounded like all those cats were trying to grab their share of up to date popular black music too - sort of sophisticated disco, if you want ... And I admit it did bug me the way even the most commercial stuff marketed under the "fusion" label was hailed as THE music that jazz in its totality was all about). So the "soft fusion" music was already there that later was being marketed under "smooth jazz" but does that mean this label (the way it had been coined by marketing people) was any less artificial and anything more than an attempt at cashing in on the "jazz" label because "jazz" was considered hip, sophisticated, cool or whatever ...

Unusually, I'm not clear about what you're saying here, Steve.

In particular, I don't know what you mean by "soft fusion" - I never listened to fusion anyway - could you give a couple of examples?

All labels for genres of music are coined quite a long time after the music develops. Marketing men don't hang with musicians, do they?

MG

[Noj]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

[Dan Gould]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

I don't think there's any line at all. What is marketed as "smooth jazz" is in fact instrumental pop.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

I don't think there's any line at all. What is marketed as "smooth jazz" is in fact instrumental pop.

Dunno. Tell me, was Gerald Allbright's "Live at Birdland West" marketed as Smooth Jazz or as Jazz? That sure as hell isn't instrumental pop and not by a very long chalk.

MG

[Dan Gould]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

I don't think there's any line at all. What is marketed as "smooth jazz" is in fact instrumental pop.

Dunno. Tell me, was Gerald Allbright's "Live at Birdland West" marketed as Smooth Jazz or as Jazz? That sure as hell isn't instrumental pop and not by a very long chalk.

MG

I have no idea how it was marketed and never said that smooth jazz artists have to only record smooth jazz. If it was something other than smooth jazz, it wasn't played by smooth jazz stations.

I only said that smooth jazz (what smooth jazz stations play) is indistinguishable from instrumental pop.

[John L]

Smooth jazz stations don't just play instrumental music, let alone instrumental pop. Luther Vandross and Anita Baker are big radio favorites, for example.

When I am riding on the airport shuttle in DC, where they tune into loud smooth jazz radio as a rule, I always root hard that the next number might turn out to be Luther or Anita.

[Dan Gould]

Smooth jazz stations don't just play instrumental music, let alone instrumental pop. Luther Vandross and Anita Baker are big radio favorites, for example.

Of course I shouldn't have implied that Smooth Jazz stations play only instrumental music. But I would argue that the instrumental music that makes up their playlists have more in common with pop music forms than with jazz, specifically in the rhythms used and the prevalence of modern R&B style licks (by which I mean, R&B from say the 80s on, after rhythm eclipsed blues in "R&B").

[Big Beat Steve]

And as for the errors (or not) of the opening quote, it all depends on how you look at it. Of course the "Smooth jazz" tag had not been coined in the 70s yet (and the way I remember it a lot of that brand of music marketed under the "fusion" tag sounded like all those cats were trying to grab their share of up to date popular black music too - sort of sophisticated disco, if you want ... And I admit it did bug me the way even the most commercial stuff marketed under the "fusion" label was hailed as THE music that jazz in its totality was all about). So the "soft fusion" music was already there that later was being marketed under "smooth jazz" but does that mean this label (the way it had been coined by marketing people) was any less artificial and anything more than an attempt at cashing in on the "jazz" label because "jazz" was considered hip, sophisticated, cool or whatever ...

Unusually, I'm not clear about what you're saying here, Steve.

In particular, I don't know what you mean by "soft fusion" - I never listened to fusion anyway - could you give a couple of examples?

All labels for genres of music are coined quite a long time after the music develops. Marketing men don't hang with musicians, do they?

MG

MG, I made up this "soft fusion" term myself just to hint at the blander and more commercial semi-jazz music played here and there (radio etc.) under the "fusion" tag.

You know when I started getting seriously interested in and collecting jazz in my high school days in the 70s the music marketed under the "fusion" label really bugged me because everybody semingly "in the know" seemed to insist that THIS was what jazz all about and (worse still) was what jazz had been about forever. Of course I wouldn't say fusion per se is no valid style of jazz, but to make matters worse, among that "fusion" label there just was soooo much doodling and noodling that was just plain insipid pap (sort of slightly r&B-ed over elevator music), and I take it that the evolution of this end of fusion was what later was marketed as "smooth jazz".

After the early 80s I did not really pay much attention to fusion anymore as it somehow ebbed off but when smooth "jazz" came along again from the late 90s it did get rather annoying.

For the very reason evoked by others here: Those among the total newbies who might otherwise have gotten into some real jazz (though it might be a bit more demanding on one's listening) are led to believe "smooth jazz" actually is at the core of REAL jazz and is what jazz is all about (marketing forces at work, you know ...). Either they pass it off as elevator music and never care to explore actual jazz any further or they get stuck in the rut of this smooth, unoffensive lull of soft instrumental streams and get frightened away from any real jazz that has considerable more bite (regardless of the actual style of jazz). And you yourself as somebody who prefers quite a wide variety of real jazz it IS annoying being associated with that kind of pap and having to explain that there is a LOT more to jazz.

It's a bit like this: Imagine you are a diehard classic jazz fan of the "acoustic" era (there are such characters). And then somebody comes along who drools about Mr Acker Bilk being THE EPITOME of "classic jazz".

Just my 2c

Steve

[Teasing the Korean]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

I respectfully disagree. I have lots of what could be classified as "instrumental pop," and it blows away any smooth jazz that I've heard.

[Jim Alfredson]

I think the first post is extremely ignorant and biased. It is a given that not all smooth jazz is good (the same can be said of any music for that matter). But to deny the lineage that connects it to "real" jazz (whatever that term means) is shortsighted at best.

I hear the phrase "instrumental pop" a lot and that is a good description. But if so, what are the covers of Tin Pan Alley tunes done by countless jazz musicians in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc? Pop tunes done instrumentally, right?

I don't think the original author of the first post has ever actually seen a smooth jazz concert. I finally did a few months ago and the experience helped me understand what it's about. It's about playing pop tunes instrumentally, soloing over the form, people dancing, singing along, having a good time, etc. It's a live band playing your favorite tunes instrumentally and taking solos. Sounds familair.

Yes, some of it is absolutely wretched, especially the stuff on the radio (again, that can be said for any music... usually the worst examples a genre of music are played on the radio) but I don't think it is pretending to be anything it isn't. And it definitely was not created by suits, it was created by mucisians. Now, the suits may have helped "dilute" it as they often do with anything that becomes remotely popular. But to give them credit for the creation is ludicrous.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

I hear the phrase "instrumental pop" a lot and that is a good description. But if so, what are the covers of Tin Pan Alley tunes done by countless jazz musicians in the 40s, 50s, 60s, etc? Pop tunes done instrumentally, right?

I do assume this comment of yours is all tongue in cheek, right?

I suppose you are fully aware of the major difference between a Tin Pan Alley standard done instrumentally by, say, Eddie Duchin or Joe Reichman on the one hand and Al Haig, Oscar Peterson or Art Tatum on the other?

It's what you make of the source material, and this is what the difference between "instrumental pop" and "instrumental jazz" amounts to. An occassional obbligato does not yet make a truly jazzy solo and does not turn the music into jazz yet.

[Teasing the Korean]

How are folks defining "instrumental pop" and is the assumption that it automatically sucks?

[Christiern]

I think Larry's thread starter is about the origin of the term, not the music. Innocuous, jazz-flavored music predates by many years the broadcaster focus groups.

Just my thoughts on this--still have 1¢ to go.

[Larry Kart]

I think Larry's thread starter is about the origin of the term, not the music. Innocuous, jazz-flavored music predates by many years the broadcaster focus groups.

Just my thoughts on this--still have 1¢ to go.

That's pretty much how I understood it (though I'm no expert on this stuff at all) -- that some pre-existing music was assembled/packaged with the goal of creating a new radio format (the assembling/packaging based on a blend of intuition of and/or research into what the audience they wanted to reach might go for), and that it was also felt that labeling the results in just the right way might be a big part of selling it in the realms where radio formats are sold, etc. If so, once the packaging/labeling process was followed by the broadcasting-under-that-label stage, it would seem that the game to some degree had been changed, though certainly in one of those good-old American ways. (Sociologist David Riesman, back in the 1950s, asked some pubescent girls why they liked the then No. 1 pop record. The answer he got was: "We like it because it's popular." Can you say, "Cuckoo for Cocoa-Puffs"?)

In any case, the key limited question for me is the factuality (or non-factuality) of the poster on Jazz West Coast's statement: "I worked with a consultant who later became one of the three original smooth jazz creators." That is, were there in fact three radio people who put their heads together to package and label (with the aid of focus groups) this assembled-out-of-already-existing-material radio format, and is it true that before they did so (if indeed they did) the format, as a specific, labeled format, did not exist in radioland. Or maybe it already pretty much existed as radio format but without that label? I don't know. (I'm vaguely reminded now of a somewhat pernicious thread on the nature and origin of "Dixieland.")

[Noj]

There's a fine line between smooth jazz and instrumental pop.

I respectfully disagree. I have lots of what could be classified as "instrumental pop," and it blows away any smooth jazz that I've heard.

I have lots of what could be classified as instrumental pop too, but I've also got some pretty good smooth jazz. I've also heard some smooth jazz which was so abyssmal as to rank below any instrumental pop I've ever heard. So, I guess I'm with you as far as it not being quite as black and white as my first post might indicate.

[Chuck Nessa]

Why do any of you care about this?

[GA Russell]

...That is, were there in fact three radio people who put their heads together to package and label (with the aid of focus groups) this assembled-out-of-already-existing-material radio format, and is it true that before they did so (if indeed they did) the format, as a specific, labeled format, did not exist in radioland...

Let's distinguish the origin of the music from the origin of the marketing.

In 1985 there was a disc jockey in Atlanta named Russ Davis who had a popular show in the evening called "Jazz Flavors". I knew people who thought they were listening to jazz with this stuff.

A year or so later, he took what I assumed to be a better-paying job in New York. I always figured that his success in New York paved the way for stations around the country to adopt the format.

I don't believe I ever heard the phrase "smooth jazz" until after he moved to New York.

[JSngry]

Jazz radio in some cities was already focusing on the Butler-era Blue Note/CTI/Other Poppish Things/Etc bag before "Smooth Jazz" became a "official" format. So it was just an evolution (or devolution).

As I've said before, I have no problem with the notion of "easy on the ears, lushly produced, 'jazzy' music". You can do that and still make tasty, creative, engaging music. But that's not what most "smooth jazz" ends up being.

I hear that some labels actually have "formulas" as to what notes a soloist can or cannot play, how often, and where, in the course of a record. That's just....evil.

[Chuck Nessa]

Does this have anything to do with music?

[Teasing the Korean]

Does this have anything to do with music?

When people define their dislike of bad music with criteria that could apply to good music, yes it does.

[Rooster_Ties]

I've a silly idea that quite a bit of the harder edged (maybe less label generated) smooth jazz was influenced by 80's Miles. . . .

Yeah, and vice-versa.

[rachel]

I hear that some labels actually have "formulas" as to what notes a soloist can or cannot play, how often, and where, in the course of a record. That's just....evil.

Exactly. The term "Smooth Jazz" came into being around the same time as consultants got into the mix (ie Broadcast Architecture). Prior to that most groups such as The Rippingtons, Spyro Gyra, Fourplay, etc were known as "Contemporary Jazz" (regardless of whether that should have been the correct title in the scope of the entire history of jazz). The consultants wanted to provide an automated format that would eliminate on air talent and showcase music that could be 'background' (and therefore a 'listen at work' thing). Consequently, music was given the 15 second test, solos cut if too long, and songs kept to 3-4 minutes. If you wanted your music on "Smooth Jazz" radio, you played by the rules. There was a noticeable difference in the vibe of the music pre 1995 versus post 1995. Older Spyro Gyra, Rippingtons had much more 'edge' to it, for lack of a better term. After the inception of the "Smooth Jazz" radio format the music was repetitive, bland, easy listening...

Whether you are a fan of the music or not, there was a definite 'dumbing down' occuring in the mid 1990's, and it was all because of consultants wanting to create a product.

Edited February 26, 2008 by rachel

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

(Sociologist David Riesman, back in the 1950s, asked some pubescent girls why they liked the then No. 1 pop record. The answer he got was: "We like it because it's popular." Can you say, "Cuckoo for Cocoa-Puffs"?)

This doesn't seem an unreasonable response to me. One of the things music has been supposed to do since the very earliest times is unite the community (quite often around a shaman or tribal or clan leader). Musicians in hunter-gatherer tribes would not otherwise have been allowed the time needed to learn to play or sing effectively. Of course, it didn't stop once mankind discovered agriculture. And the way it works is through peer pressure.

We think too much about art and personal expression; not enough about community benefits.

MG