Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

This issue definately opened some dialogue. Reading the responses has been a real eye opener on how some people feel strongly about being the winners of their point of view verse compromisers with the other's position on what makes good music (jazz). A wise person stated that it is far better and smarter to first understand the other person's POV before trying to be understood when faced with new or unknown situations.

My current musical interest evolved out of listening and getting hooked on artists like Santana, Blood Sweat & Tears, Chicago, Charlie Byrd, Miles Davis, Freddie Hubbard, Donald Bryd, George Benson, Herbie Hancock and Herbert Laws during a summer vacation with my Uncle in 1970. This musical experience was a watershed event for me because it opened my mind to all types of music (especially jazz - contemporary, smooth, traditional, straight ahead, fusion, be-bop, post-bop, world, etc.) My dominant interset is in jazz and is still evolving and growing even though it appears that radio programers are moving away from most forms of jazz. (Smooth or contemporary jazz at least got people interested in exploring all sub-genres of jazz.) For those of you who are familiar with JazzTimes and JAZZIZ, it's nice that these magazines support different styles of jazz to satisfy ppeople's various taste in music.

Those of you that appear to be hardliners for or against either style of the music discussed here should recommend an Artist's work which will act as a bridge to the other's genre. Who knows maybe there will be winners on both sides.

Let me try this out; for you Smooth Jazzers listen to Joe Pass (whitesone) or Lew Soloff (hanalei bay), and for SA Jazzers try listening to Joe Fuentes (good cup of joe) or Jeff Lorger (kickin' it).

Regardless of your preferences, please support the Artist you enjoy by attending concerts and buying their music because in the long run we all will reap the rewards of new music.

"The difference between a mountain and a molehill is your perspective"

Nice post Lngbruno. Best if we are slow to label good performers like some listed above (Frisell, Brecker, Metheny ect). Really hate to label Joe Pass other than as great. I second the idea to listen to Joe and suggest his "Virtuoso" album. Its a series - get the first Lp/Cd in the series.

Sincerely, I remain

Wow, what a great post from 8 years back that avoided me until today.

I find it extremely interesting that not one contributor to the post mentions that Jazz, like it or not, IS considered America's only true art form.

Smooth Jazz as I recall evolved from the successful fusion groups of the late 70's and early 80's. Back when Kenny Goreleck was a featured player on a Jeff Lorber Fusion album. I believe smooth jazz to have been more of an entrepreneurial commercial brain child of record executives more so than a natural evolution of the music, or at least classic jazz.

Reading posts from those who by their own admission don't understand classic jazz I think there's a direct correlation between ones lack of understanding of music in general and their individual education. By education I'm not speaking in terms of formal education as much as what have you exposed your ears to musically speaking over the course of your life? Music programs have been completely eliminated in schools throughout the land for the past 15 years. We've seen a dumming down of our society as it pertains to the electoral process. I believe that same dumming down exists in our society where music is concerned. Smooth jazz appears to appeal to those who don't desire to educate themselves about the study of music, and to those who'd rather be entertained without having to do any serious thinking on their own. Culturally speaking, this is the dumming down of our society as a whole that has taken place especially so over the past 35 years.

Americans by and large are ignorant of jazz, an art form that was created in its own native land. How much race played into the development of musical ignorance is an important question to ask, for clearly so many of the jazz greats of yesteryear were black men living on the avantgarde of the music. These cats were geniuses, however I defy the average American to name a dozen of them.

The answer I believe to the question what separates classic jazz versus smooth jazz is easily addressed from a technical perspective. As a classic jazz musician you're playing far advanced harmony and rhythmical concepts that are not an element of smooth jazz. The dissonance created by some of this harmonic structure, scales, and rhythm is what makes classic jazz serious music from a musicians perspective. Also I've suspected this is also why I believe most smooth jazz enthusiasts find classic jazz less to their liking. The contrasting harmonies and rhythms of classic jazz simply do not appeal to the ear of the average uneducated listener, and therefore the smoother harmonies that make up smooth jazz, are more palatable to the unthinking listener, or rather the smooth jazz listener. Put simplistically, the society wants to be entertained without having to think about what's being presented. This is the dumming down of a culture, and why I believe true classic jazz is heralded overseas but not so much so in America. We live in a rock and roll money driven culture, and therefore what's popular becomes what some exec feels you should be packaged as good music.

I wholeheartedly agree, most smooth jazz artists can't hold a candle to the musicianship of a classical jazz artist, for they lack the repertoire of the classical jazz musician. That doesn't make the smooth jazz artist any less of a musician, for it can be entertaining. I watched in awe one night at Seattle's local jazz alley as smooth jazz artist Gerald Albright wowed the audience with his version of the old standard Georgia. Gerald played circles around anything Kenny G could be heard doing. This was the first smooth jazz artist I'd heard live that had actual jazz chops. I learned during a set break speaking to Gerald that his chops had been honed as an LA studio musician. That was no surprise, for it was evident though he was labeled a smooth jazz artist his development was far beyond what one normally hears from a smooth jazz player.

The point I'm trying to make is, one has to take the step to educate themselves musically speaking, and by doing so one learns better how to listen and how to better understand what they're hearing. However there is no doubt that classic jazz is here to stay, even if only played by those among us who respect and enjoy the music for what it is. A true art form.

from my understanding jazz is basically the original era of king oliver and satchmo and the like. every era after this actually has name associated with it whether it is big band, bop, hard bop, fusion, smooth etc...

12-23-10: Coltrane1
Wow, what a great post from 8 years back that avoided me until today.

I find it extremely interesting that not one contributor to the post mentions that Jazz, like it or not, IS considered America's only true art form.

Maybe not in this forum but here is an excerpt from my PFO Product of the year award, as posted at Music Matters Jazz.

I wrote that exactly...

http://www.musicmattersjazz.com/critics.html#13