I don't think I was one of the guys in a white mask replete with flaming cross that Tim referred to, but I'll venture an opinion anyway: most serious jazz buffs don't consider smooth jazz to be jazz. It may share a few elements of music structure such as harmony, melody, tempo, etc., and have a sound which contains stylistic components drawn from swing, bop, hard bop, cool, etc., but in most cases "smooth jazz" lacks two of the most essential characteristics of "real" jazz: genuine improvisation, and swing in the jazz sense (characterized by a preponderance of syncopated rhythmic figures).
I don't mean by these comments to suggest that "smooth jazz" is an inferior form of music. The whole purpose of music is to create an emotional response in the listener, and any music that achieves that affect is certainly a legitemate form of musical expression. That doesn't mean, however, that "smooth jazz" actually meets the full definition of jazz in the commonly understood sense of the term.
This debate about the merits of "smooth jazz" vs. "real" jazz is mostly an elitist one, anyway. Listen to what you enjoy, and don't worry whether other people like it.
I don't mean by these comments to suggest that "smooth jazz" is an inferior form of music. The whole purpose of music is to create an emotional response in the listener, and any music that achieves that affect is certainly a legitemate form of musical expression. That doesn't mean, however, that "smooth jazz" actually meets the full definition of jazz in the commonly understood sense of the term.
This debate about the merits of "smooth jazz" vs. "real" jazz is mostly an elitist one, anyway. Listen to what you enjoy, and don't worry whether other people like it.