Origins of Smooth Jazz -- Not a surprise

[Big Beat Steve]

As far as I can tell, it's the current incarnation of the kind of music that made Andre Kostelanetz, Mantovani and others popular/famous. It's hardly "evil."

I can assure you that as a fan of 40s and 50s swing, bop, cool and "mainstream" jazz I'd sternly take offense if anybody associated me as a jazz fan with the pap churned out at the same time by Kostelanetz, Mantovani, Mitch Miller, etc. :D

As much as a post-bop fan takes offense with being associated with Kenny G.

It took much more to play jazz back then than front a big band lineup. And the fact that the occasional dimwits list Kostelanetz, Mitch Miller or Mantovani 10in records (that they found in their parents' attic) in the JAZZ vinyl section on eBay does not make those disc sany more jazz than an awful lot of those more recent smoothie smoochie offerings.

Edited March 5, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Dan Gould]

"Odious"? Nope. It's a label, for marketing purposes - that's all.

When the "label" takes on the meaning of the word used, that is absolutely "odious".

Do you cook? Do you appreciate a nice thick cut, perfectly aged, seasoned and cooked piece of steak? How would you feel if someone served you a gray, rubbery "hamburger" from the local school lunch room and told you it was steak? Would you simply say "Live and let live" and "that's not really odious or evil" or would you want to let that misinformed person know what constitutes steak and what constitutes disgusting crap?

[seeline]

But it's *all* popular music.

I love all kinds of esoteric music (jazz and otherwise), and have as much of a stake in that as anyone else here, I'm sure. But I also love a lot of unabashedly commercial pop music, like old R&B, soul, and funk - and a *lot* of Indian movie soundtracks. The latter is not what the Indian embassy here in the US would necessarily put on its "approved" list of Things You Need to Hear in order to understand Indian music. That said, it's loved by millions of people all over the world, and is about as "authentic" as it gets!

I can get all misty-eyed over "difficult" music, but I also need to cut loose and dance a bit - and it's a lot easier to dance to a lot of pop music than, say, Roscoe Mitchell.

I guess I just don't see the need for a hierarchical way of thinking about this, though I sure did waste a lot of time and energy worrying and fulminating about it in the past. It's just not worth it anymore, to me, at least.

What I'm saying probably won't go down well with some folks here, but... it's just an opinion, not The Gospel According To... ! And I'm content to let it rest there.

Edited to add: I have been known to order from the drive-through at the local McDonalds - doesn't everyone?

Edited March 5, 2008 by seeline

[Big Beat Steve]

@Seeline:

Dan Gould has got this spot on.

Of course there are all sorts of popular music (as opposed to long-hair classical music), and I have my favorites in non-jazz popular music too. Nothing wrong with that.

But in the case of this smoothie thing (and I am going to repeat myself) it's just this: LET'S CALL A SPADE A SPADE and don't try to sneak under the umbrella of the oh so hip and sophisticated "jazz" label. Or for what reason do YOU think they used the "jazz" tag after "smooth"? If it was only a matter of another type of popular music they might have been free to use ANY number of attributes to go with "smooth". But no, it had to be jazz.

I can think of a lot of recordings firmly in the JAZZ idiom that are "non-edgy", slow, soft, balladesque - and YET they have TONS more swing and jazz feel than that pop-laden smooth elevator music sailing under a usurpated jazz flag that I've heard (the smoothies that get exposure and airplay over here may not be 100% the same that you associate with this in the US but basically I figure it is the same thing).

[seeline]

OK, the thing is - most all the labels out there *are* about marketing, whether consumers and listeners realize that or not.

In the US, at least, all "product" that isn't "classical" is "pop" by default; further subdivisions (so customers can find what they're looking for) are made from there.

"Jazz" already covers about as much territory as "classical" - and makes about as much sense, if you try to parse it (from my pov, anyhow).

Other than that, I guess I've been involved in a few too many threads about "authenticity" (elsewhere) to feel like I can - or want to - claim some sort of high ground about the music I like being innately better than the music someone who tunes in to a "smooth jazz" station likes - especially because most of those stations play things that I *do* like (soul, R&B, funk, actual jazz).

Honestly, I would rather put the energy I used to spend on getting upset about this into listening and/or playing music. It's much more fun, and has done a lot for my blood pressure. (I'm not kidding about the blood pressure part, BTW.)

[Big Beat Steve]

Aw well, letting off steam once in a while can be real good for one's blood pressure too, you know ...

BTW, it is not only in the US that all that is not classical basically tends to get filed under "pop". So if you want to have a subdivision for that smoothie stuff use "Easy Listening" (maybe "Contemporary Easy listening" to avoid confusion with 60s middle of the road elevator pap) or "Smooth pop" or whatever ... but heck, it just AIN'T jazz, even if no one sings.

'Nuff steam let off again ...

Bye for now

Edited March 5, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[seeline]

Aw well, letting off steam once in a while can be real good for one's blood pressure too, you know ...

IKWYM, Steve!

I think you're entirely right about "easy listening" being a better description or category label, too. (which is kinda why I mentioned Mantovani a bit earlier. )

Edited March 5, 2008 by seeline

[crabgrass]

I once heard an interview with Miles Davis where he pointed out that "jazz" was a "nigger" word... meaning it was originally a word used in a derisive way to refer to a type of music made by black people.

[Guest Bill Barton]

just to go back to Goldberg:

"Smooth Soul, and Smooth Jazz, seem to me to have been a reaction against the mechanistic and formularistic tendencies of Disco "

not to start trouble, but I also think the reaction against disco was homophobic - large gay audience and scene - and I can report this from personal experience of what people were saying at the time -

That's right on the money, Allen.

Not to mention the fact that DJs spinning records became the norm rather than living, breathing musicians playing music for dancing.

Hmmm. "...a reaction against the mechanistic and formularistic tendencies of Disco"? Strikes me as more of the same. Slightly different formulas and mechanisms but definitely not a "reaction against."

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

just to go back to Goldberg:

"Smooth Soul, and Smooth Jazz, seem to me to have been a reaction against the mechanistic and formularistic tendencies of Disco "

not to start trouble, but I also think the reaction against disco was homophobic - large gay audience and scene - and I can report this from personal experience of what people were saying at the time -

That's right on the money, Allen.

Not to mention the fact that DJs spinning records became the norm rather than living, breathing musicians playing music for dancing.

Hmmm. "...a reaction against the mechanistic and formularistic tendencies of Disco"? Strikes me as more of the same. Slightly different formulas and mechanisms but definitely not a "reaction against."

Perhaps I didn't put it right. Seems to me there was a lot more freedom for singers like Anita Baker and Whitney Houston to sing, fairly expressively within the context of what they were trying to achieve, than there ever was for singers like Donna Summer. And that went right down to minor figures like Miki Howard.

MG

[randalljazz]

what's in a name?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

what's in a name?

Very interesting article, Randaljazz - thanks.

I was particularly struck by

In markets where radio companies killed off smooth jazz because of drooping ratings, listeners have often demanded a return of the music. That has happened in Milwaukee, Philadelphia and already in Washington, where both WASH (97.1 FM) and WJZW have announced plans to include smooth jazz on one of their HD channels, which require the purchase of a digital radio. Both satellite radio services, XM and Sirius, also have smooth jazz channels.

There's no doubt that this stuff is meeting a true NEED in people.

in the radio industry, listeners' desire for relaxing background music is not a priority these days. With sales of advertising spots in sharp decline, programmers and advertisers alike are looking for listeners who will be paying close attention, and that means music that's front and center, not light and breezy.

Big breaks for Chuck Nessa!

MG

[randalljazz]

what's in a name?

There's no doubt that this stuff is meeting a true NEED in people.

MG

i guess so. up here in relatively small anchburg (pop 300,000~), he whose name i hesitate to mention kenny is selling out our largest good concert hall (seats 2500) for the umteenth time, with tickets at $65-85, about twice what branford marsalis or practically anybody else commands.