Re: Real or Smooth? You be the Judge

Date: 13 Jul 2003 15:24:57 -0700
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote
Size: 4,962 bytes

"Marc Sabatella" <email-address-deleted> wrote in message news:<X30Qa.11625$email-address-deleted>...
> "Nick" <email-address-deleted> wrote:
>
> Right, but people disagree on what those limits should be.
I thought though, that the overwhelming sentiment in this thread was
that it is nearly impossible to determine limits because of the fact
that there is so much overlap, with some artists jumping all over the
map.
It seems to me the boundaries are pretty much self-determined through
what you might call natural selection. Yes, smooth jazz stations play
Phil Collins, Bonnie Raitt, and Luther Vandross, but fans of those
artists know they aren't jazz and don't come to RMB to discuss them.
And the diehard "jazz fans" certainly don't bring them up. But fans of
Bob James, Grover Washington, Jr., David Sanborn, and similar
"commercial jazz" artists apparently think they are jazzy enough that
they belong in RMB, and they have found others who agree (or they used
to, before they got scared away by all the "real jazz" fans). I say if
you think it's jazz, and you find enough people who agree and want to
talk about it, then it qualifies for discussion. And yes, that even
includes Kenny G.
Besides, how many people other than Sum1 even use the term "smooth
jazz"? They are typically more like Larry; interested in discussing a
particular artist, without labelling him/her. I've already > given a sort of recursive, bottom-up approach to
defining jazz (or any
> other living genre). Here's another, more descriptive, way (more or
> less a corollary of my other defintion): if you look at a collection of
> music, and are able to divide them into two piles in such a way that
> fans of one pile care little about the other, and vice versa, you have
> pretty much effectively defined two different genres. Most mainstream
> jazz fans really detest smooth jazz, and most smooth jazz fans have only
> a dim awareness at best of mainstream jazz.
The problem is, most mainstream jazz fans may hate "smooth jazz"
conceptually, but they have trouble defining exactly who is smooth
jazz and who is not, as most of the previous posts in this thread
demonstrate. One mainstream jazz fan took me to task for not being
able to tell the difference between Pat Metheny, Grover Washington,
Jr., and Kenny G.
I don't think the tastes of smooth jazz fans are all that static. A
lot of people get into it because their tastes have evolved from pop
and rock. It's not that unusual for them to continue evolving and be
curious about more traditional jazz. These are the kinds of people, I
suspect, that recently made "Kind of Blue" a million-seller. It wasn't
the traditionalists, most of whom have owned KOB for decades. And I
don't think it's young folks shifting over from rap, heavy metal, boy
bands, and dance/electronica.
The two smooth jazz stations I have been most familiar with over the
past ten years have had at least a couple of programs that focused on
more traditional jazz. Ramsey Lewis is the host of one such show.
Granted, it's a small percentage of the overall programming on these
stations, but any exposure is good, right? While there are obviously a > few exceptions, the separation seems
strong enough that drawing this
> line seems as obvios as drawing one between jazz and, say,
> country/western. While there might be the occassional fan of both
> genres, and the occassional recording that straddles this boundary,
I'm surprised you think the separation between smooth jazz and "real"
jazz is analogous to the separation between country & western and
"real" jazz. In another post, you stated the following:
<< "Smooth jazz", in my opinion, counts as a "related form" - it isn't
a style *of* jazz in the sense that bebop or cool jazz are, but some
of it at least seems related *to* jazz in a way. And since there is no
more specific sanctioned newsgroup for smooth jazz, seems like this
would be the most appropriate place to discuss it." >>
I don't think C&W is a "related form" of "real" jazz; it's about as
far away as you can get from it. for
> the most part, everyone seems to agree that there is basis for drawing
> such a line in the first place.
Disagree -- again, I refer to the numerous comments stating that
drawing such a line is an exercise in futility.
> Since Amos brought it up, it is also worth looking at whether splitting
> jazz and "avant-garde jazz" into separate genres makes sense. I would
> claim that vast majority of fans of "avant-garde jazz" are also claims
> of other styles of jazz, and while I readily admit that not all more
> mainstream jazz fans love all more avant-garde jazz, "enough" of them
> seems to appreciate it at some level and accept it as jazz that I don't
> see a basis for calling them separate genres.
Agree -- because, as Sum1 put it, it's absurd to attempt such
breakdowns:
rec.music.freejazz
rec.music.swingjazz
rec.music.avantgardejazz
rec.music.dixielandjazz
etc.
>