For the record, a lot of jazz historically has been pop music.

And I counter that many forms of music have been "Pop" Music in that they have been "pop"ular. It's called "Pop" Music because it's Popular.

I'm perfectly willing to be swayed in my opinion and definition of "smooth jazz" when someone can show me where the polyrhythms, syncopated rhythms, improvisation, group interaction and indeed, creativity are in "smooth jazz".

You see, "smooth jazz" is a noun. "Jazz" is a verb. Jazz doesn't "BE" jazz "DOES". jazz is a feeling. jazz is movement. it's alive and active.

"smooth jazz" just kind of lays there. In addition, I suggest that all "smooth jazz" kind of sounds the same.

Let's take the Jazz tune, "Oleo" for an example. Sonny Rollins wrote it in 1954 (based on the chord progressions of George Gershwin's "I Got Rhythm") and it's become a standard in the jazz canon. One might think a warhorse like "Oleo" must have had little variation over the years. In fact, because of improvisation, "Oleo" has endured. Even in the case of Miles Davis' recordings of the tune (of which there are more than several), each saxophonist is able to make it his own. For argument's sake, let's look at three recordings by Davis' bands of the song in question. Sonny Rollins on the "Bag's Groove" album, John Coltrane on the Relaxin'" album and Hank Mobley on the "Live At The Nighthawk" album. All three recordings begin in basically the same way with the statement of the theme (section "A"). This is followed by the Improvisational section (Section "B"). In each case the saxophonist in question is required to build their solo on a known chord structure which they do, but in very different ways. Rollins, Coltrane and Mobley all approach the song differently and it's possible to tell one's playing from another's. Rollins takes a fairly laid back solo with as much attention paid to the silences between the notes as to the notes themselves. Mobley alternates between bursts of many notes and more drawn out breaths. Coltrane plays it perhaps more frenetically over the course of his solo. The same song, given life and fire in different ways and yet it remains the same song.

I just don't see "smooth jazz" having the same kind of vibrancy and "guts".

Where's the Swing Feeling? Where's the emotion? Where's the life?

In summation, it should be apparent that, at best, "smooth jazz" should be called "easy listening pop" or some such. it is certainly not Jazz.


I eagerly await your reply


rooster241

I'm a bit surprised (and disappointed) that no one has taken up the challenge. It speaks volumes about "smooth jazz" and the style's fans, I guess.

So it goes...


rooster

Here's my reply:

Well...I had kind of hoped for a dialogue, and not just a youtube clip. That doesn't answer any of my concerns about the style. Tell me what makes you think that that song is anything but a pop song with a horn section. I have to assume (because, you didn't see fit to explain it...you know...in words) that you're confusing an uptempo beat for "guts vibrancy and life.

on a side note, I swear, the last time I was on hold with my doctor's office there was a tape loop of that very song playing or something extremely similar. (which now that I think of kind of proves my point about sameness)


rooster

This fits the smooth jazz label for me.

I understand your point concerning the difference between smooth jazz and traditional free jazz.
Of course smooth jazz contains elements of pop music.
Rock and roll and metal music can also be classified in the mainstream, as pop music as well.
Jazz fusion is also more appealing to me personally than most of the traditional freestyle jazz also.

when I'm listening to the radio while driving in the car, or whenever the mood strikes me. Its mostly smooth jazz I listen to, in comparison to other stations.
I will agree with you that a lot of smooth jazz songs are pop orientated. but at the same time, a lot of smooth jazz atist and their music is outstanding jazz orientated music that relaxes the soul and mind for me.

I thank you, Necromancer, for taking the time to Actually write something and not just respond with a Video Clip.

You are correct that "Rock & Roll" and "Metal" (among others) can be classified as "Pop" music, but i think there is a bit of stylistic difference between those types and "smooth jazz" that separates them both as "pop". that is to say, while both "Rock a & Roll" and "smooth jazz" can be pop, you wouldn't put "metal" and 'smooth jazz" into the same pop category, would you?

I'm not sure what you mean by "traditional free jazz" and "traditional freestyle jazz".

The "Jazz Fusion" of the 1970's is probably the closest thing to "smooth jazz" in the "Jazz" world. "smooth jazz" is "pop music" for the reasons I listed above, a decided lack of polyrhythms, rhythmic syncopation, improvisation, group interaction and creativity.


In summation, I would like to point out that I never said that people shouldn't like or listen to smooth jazz if that's what they want. My main point in all this has been and remains that smooth jazz is a misnomer and that a discussion of it would be better served in a pop thread as it really doesn't belong in a thread dedicated to Jazz and Blues

rooster

I recommend you something of Eric Marienthal, its a great saxophonist, i met him in a 'Chick Corea's Electric Band Live' Video'.