This debate goes far beyond simply soothing ones "mood" or preference for music.
Peaceful coexistence is fabulous and the ideal. In an ideal world every individual would have a fair and equal opportunity to develop themselves and their art form.
A musician, like any other artist, lives to create and perfect their art.
It is in that spirit I suggest any actual true discussion of "smooth" vs. classic jazz cannot be fully discussed unless acknowledging the impact the component of race has had upon jazz since its inception.
The most direct way to both fully understand and examine the "smooth" vs. classic debate is to examine the component that truly fuels this debate for the working professional musician.
So often there are those among us, whatever their motives, who attempt to rewrite history. Granted, there were cultural issues afoot that weighed upon so called "classic" jazz during the period of its creation. Historically, from the turn of the century forward, jazz was labeled and degraded as the 'devils music'. A plethora of other well known negative labels not worth repeating were attached to it in an attempt to dismiss both its artistic merit, and the contribution of those who created it. Jazz has an established history of many writers attempting to derail jazz, and therefore the public's wide acceptance of the music.
70 years ago there was resentment among a vast majority of players and creators of jazz, so many of which at the time of the big band era who couldn't find regular work. It is felt by many of todays current music scene that same resentment is fueled today by writer's who promote new and less talented white players which many feel don't possess real talent, while obvious talented new black players struggle to make a living with their art for lack of equal exposure. This division does not end there. Some even go so far as to believe a music that was born of slavery, and the black american cultural experience, has been in effect, '"taken over" by a society that has now accepted the music as an art form without recognizing the contribution of those who created the art form.
Ironically enough, it may come as a surprise to some that jazz preceded baseball by almost a decade by breaking the color barrier. Black players were integrating white bands years before Jackie Robinson put on a Dodgers uniform. I repeat, it was jazz music, that went against an established cultural norm when it wasn't socially acceptable to have a black player in an all white band.
Bebop didn't just result from talented players like Parker, Gillespie, etc., as a natural course of evolution of the music. Many believe bebop was a result of struggling artists attempting to take jazz to a higher level of technical expertise in order to distinguish themselves from less talented and working players. In other words, if you could play bop you were distinguished from those that were working yet less talented. There was a resentment among the talented players of yesteryear. This same resentment is alive today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate.
Many believe the racial dynamics that were an undercurrent of jazz 70 years ago are alive and well today in the "smooth" vs. classical debate. And there is a resentment of those who play this music at the level of an art form, for they are the true keepers of the flame that will keep this music alive.
But for those that know music, from a technical perspective, there is no debate for there exists no true comparison between both genres.
