The problem here is the insistence of some on calling this genre of music, Jazz; not the inherent value of the music. The great irony is that the PLAYERS of this music themselves would be the first to admit that this music is not Jazz. Call it fusion, instrumental pop, even pop-jazz; whatever!. But Jazz it ain't, and that's ok. Remember, the title "smooth-jazz" was not coined by the players ot even the listeners; it was coined by the radio stations who wanted to capitalize on the respect, credibility, and glamour that the term Jazz conjures up. This is a genre with it's own easthetic and for some to insist that it is something that it is not is kinda silly and does the genre a disservice, even if it does a pretty good job by itself. There is plenty of music in this genre that is played with sincerity, soul, and sometimes even virtuosity; unfortunately there is plenty that is pure zacharine. In fairness, we also know that there are plenty of "real" Jazz projects that leave a lot to be desired, and speaking for myself, I would rather listen to Dave Sanborn milk a melody, or to Michael Brecker astound with his incredible virtuosity, than to some of the real Jazz artists who can sometimes put out less than memorable work. At the same time there are many truly great Jazz artists who would sound out of place and just plain wrong trying to play in the "smooth-jazz" style. Just because it IS Jazz, does not make it good.
Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not!
Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not!