Birth of the Fool: Smooth Jazz" sweeping American radio airwaves
Larry Smithee
Birth of the Fool: Smooth Jazz" sweeping American radio airwaves
There's a radio station here in Charleston that shall remain nameless
that bills their format as "smooth jazz". The funny thing is that I've
listened to it a few times, and I've never heard anything that even
remotely approximates jazz. In fact, the only listenable music I've
heard on the station at all was from Sade and Sarah McLaughlin. I
enjoy the work of both of these fine vocalists, but I wouldn't
classify either as "jazz". I wouldn't feel a need to pigeonhole these
women at all, were the rest of the music played in the "smooth jazz"
format not such dreck. I even heard a John Tesh song, which prompted
my Dalmatian, Puck, to throw up in the backseat. As the canine arbiter
of good taste and civility here in South Carolina low country, such a
response to such awful music was definitely not inappropriate nor
surprising.
I had been planning to write this "smooth jazz" station and/or hold
them up for public ridicule here at The Prophet's Place for some time.
Then I saw an article in the June 6 issue of the New York Times that
alerted me to the fact that such pabulum for the masses was an actual
musical format that was more or less sweeping the nation. That a bunch
of bland, artistically deprived boomers would want to listen to a
light alternative to bands like Metallica and Nine Inch Nails favored
by their kids doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that radio
programmers have found such a banal lowest common musical denominator
for these people so quickly. What alarms me is that "jazz" will
somehow become synonymous with the wretched offerings of Kenny G, and
not the music of legends like Miles Davis or contemporary bearers of
the flame like Joshua Redman and Marcus Roberts.
The programmers of these stations contend that they are doing a
service to serious jazz by offering an accessible entree to it to the
teeming masses. The problem is that they do nothing to educate the
average chump on the street about the history and theory of the music.
Most won't even play "traditional jazz" as these new age yuppies
sneeringly call the greatest music ever created, and if they do it
gets a few hours a week in a garbage time like early Sunday morning.
Thus, any contention that they are doing anything other than playing
soft, sickly sweet music to calm the nerves of jangled yuppies is
completely disingenuous.
And why should they care about the music? The stations do well since
they offer advertisers an affluent, status conscious demographic.
These are people who don't (or can't ) think for themselves and will
suck up whatever trend or product is marketed to them next, from baby
strollers to mutual funds to minivans. The saccharine pabulum
programmed by these stations lulls these consumers into a state of
complete complacency, so they are easily influenced by the
manipulation and suggestion of advertisers. Let's face it, for anyone
to contend that Kenny G is a serious musician has to be brainwashed.
Why should you challenge the mindless sheep, who have grown complacent
listening to the bleating of other sheep?
But it ain't jazz....it's just easy listening tripe. The best quote
from the NYT article was by Stanley Crouch, the artistic consultant
for Jazz at Lincoln Center who said the problem with smooth jazz is
that it "makes it more difficult to know what jazz is for the average
person and when people finally hear real jazz, they always say, 'why
did I spend so much time listening to garbage?'"
Or, like my dog Puck, they just throw up. One of the primary duties of
the Prophet's Place is to do our part promoting real jazz. Here in the
state of South Carolina, we're fortunate to have a nightly program on
SC Public Radio called "Inside Jazz" hosted by the very knowledgeable
and personable Terry Rosen. The only complaint I have about this
program is that it's only two hours a night--I could listen to it 24
hours a day. Rosen, who currently plays around the Columbia, SC area
with his own quartet (he has a standing gig every Thursday night at
the Hunter-Gatherer brewpub in Columbia) is an experienced and
talented guitarist, who once played in Sammy Davis, Jr.'s band. Check
him out if you get the chance, and check out "Inside Jazz" nightly
from 9-11 on South Carolina Public Radio.
And support REAL jazz artists and programming wherever you have the
opportunity to. Otherwise we'll be goose-stepping into the new
millennium to the sounds of Kenny G and Yanni.
ric
> http://www.prophetsplace.com/jazzlite.html
>
> Birth of the Fool: Smooth Jazz" sweeping American radio airwaves
[...snip]
LOL...danke.
--
Better than hearing "Lady Day", or checking in at Monterey...
sum1
>
> Birth of the Fool: Any idiot can have an opinion
What a wanker this guy is.
He has absolutely no respect for the musicians, the programmers, or
the people who like this music - but he's worried that these same
people might get the wrong impression.
Oh, and Larry - good job on the cut and paste.
Luke Kaven
[...]
> Here in the
> state of South Carolina, we're fortunate to have a nightly program on
> SC Public Radio called "Inside Jazz" hosted by the very knowledgeable
> and personable Terry Rosen. The only complaint I have about this
> program is that it's only two hours a night--I could listen to it 24
> hours a day. Rosen, who currently plays around the Columbia, SC area
> with his own quartet (he has a standing gig every Thursday night at
> the Hunter-Gatherer brewpub in Columbia) is an experienced and
> talented guitarist, who once played in Sammy Davis, Jr.'s band. Check
> him out if you get the chance, and check out "Inside Jazz" nightly
> from 9-11 on South Carolina Public Radio.
I wonder when this article was written. Terry Rosen has been dead for
more than four years.
Larry Smithee
> lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote in message news:<3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com>...
> Oh, and Larry - good job on the cut and paste.
Thanks much, Sum. Obviously I owe my inspiration to your endless example.
Larry
Gary Smiley
sum1
> Larry's post is dead-on correct and I agree with him 100% and I agree with his dog too.
So the new authority on music at rmb is a dog.
Woof!
Steve Cooper
toto, but he does have a valid point regarding a lack of respect for people
by some posters in this newsgroup who like smooth jazz. You (Larry Smithee)
and I may agree that smooth jazz is pabulum (sic), but if stations want to
play it and people want to listen to it then so be it. Good old American
marketers figure out what the masses like and deliver it to them. And not
many people younger than 40 dig mainstream jazz. A look at the CD sales
charts proves that. Hip-hop and rap is garbage to a lot of people too, but
millions listen to it whether we like it or not. Music trends simply reflect
society. Perhaps with the many demands on people these days with their
multiple jobs and hectic calendars, they like to listen to a music where
they don't have to be intellectually engaged.
My ex-wife is a devotee of smooth jazz; however, she attended many
mainstream jazz concerts with me (i.e., artists like Sonny Rollins, Dizzy
Gillespie, Red Rodney, David Murray, Oscar Peterson, Wynton Marsalis,
Stephane Grapelli, Roy Hargrove, etc.). And although she enjoyed the
mainstream jazz artists, she felt that mainstream jazz is best enjoyed in
person. She like many others in her age group prefer smooth jazz for casual
listening.
There is so much alarmist hysteria embedded in your commentary (i.e., Birth
of the Fool) that I think you must have attended the Stanley Crouch school
of journalism. The chances of Kenny G or Dave Koz becoming the face of jazz
are remote. Their music will fade over time, unlike the music of Armstrong,
Ellington, Parker, Monk, etc. In my opinion, the latter are 20th century
musicians of the calibre of Brahms, Beethoven, etc. I can't say I agree with
you that mainstream jazz is the greatest music ever written but it is right
up there. (It's hard to beat Beethoven & Mozart.)
I love "real" jazz too and have for over forty years. It pains me too to see
this mass movement to smooth jazz -- and I, like you, will support tradition
al jazz as much as I can and lobby for music education in our elementary and
secondary schools. Speaking of the latter, there is hope that jazz will
'stay alive'. (BTW, it's imminent death has been vastly exaggerated for the
past 40 years!). Thousands and thousands of kids throughout this country are
playing in their school jazz bands and having competitions. I amazed at
their enthusiasm.
"Larry Smithee" <lcsm...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3cdae13f.0401...@posting.google.com...
Gary Smiley
Zoot
> Jazz alarmists abound on this newsgroup! Now I don't mean to defend sum1 in
> toto, but he does have a valid point regarding a lack of respect for people
> by some posters in this newsgroup who like smooth jazz. You (Larry Smithee)
> and I may agree that smooth jazz is pabulum (sic), but if stations want to
> play it and people want to listen to it then so be it. Good old American
problem is that instrumental pop is filling the bill at jazz venues
like jazz festivals, radio time and record bins by people that got the
word that jazz is an important american art form but don't know what
it is. they grab the first thing with the word jazz in it [smooth] and
have a festival. kind of like going to a dinner and getting a plate
full of books cause they're brain food. shade, simply red, kenny g
[not sure of spelling] are o k i guess but calling it jazz is bad for
jazz.
> And not many people younger than 40 dig mainstream jazz. A look at the CD sales
> charts proves that. Hip-hop and rap is garbage to a lot of people too, but
> millions listen to it whether we like it or not. Music trends simply reflect
> society. Perhaps with the many demands on people these days with their
> multiple jobs and hectic calendars, they like to listen to a music where
> they don't have to be intellectually engaged.
>
> My ex-wife is a devotee of smooth jazz; however, she attended many
> mainstream jazz concerts with me (i.e., artists like Sonny Rollins, Dizzy
> Gillespie, Red Rodney, David Murray, Oscar Peterson, Wynton Marsalis,
> Stephane Grapelli, Roy Hargrove, etc.). And although she enjoyed the
> mainstream jazz artists, she felt that mainstream jazz is best enjoyed in
> person. She like many others in her age group prefer smooth jazz for casual
> listening.
>
> There is so much alarmist hysteria embedded in your commentary (i.e., Birth
> of the Fool) that I think you must have attended the Stanley Crouch school
> of journalism. The chances of Kenny G or Dave Koz becoming the face of jazz
> are remote. Their music will fade over time, unlike the music of Armstrong,
> Ellington, Parker, Monk, etc. In my opinion, the latter are 20th century
> musicians of the calibre of Brahms, Beethoven, etc. I can't say I agree with
> you that mainstream jazz is the greatest music ever written but it is right
> up there. (It's hard to beat Beethoven & Mozart.)
not a good example, the vienna boys were the boy bands of the day .
they had to protect there gravy gigs by delivering what was expected
of them. they didn't even have the balls to use a lot of what bach
showed them.
hayden's surprise symphony tells me that even they knew there shit was
tired.
> I love "real" jazz too and have for over forty years. It pains me too to see
> this mass movement to smooth jazz
there will never be a movement from jazz to smooth. pop to smooth yes
r&b to smooth yes but jazz?
-- and I, like you, will support tradition
> al jazz as much as I can and lobby for music education in our elementary and
> secondary schools.
yes yes yes and all schools
Steve Cooper
unless the promoters include some "popular" music to attract more attendees.
And there just aren't enough mainstream jazz musicians to go around, that is
musicians with a name who can attract a crowd.. It's not like the golden age
of the 50's anymore. Let's face it, the audience for what you and I call
jazz is shrinking. Just attend any concert featuring mainstream jazz and the
bulk of the audience are senior citizens, at least that is the way it is
around here. Let me give you an example. Last year there was a jazz festival
featuring the Clayton Brothers one night and Dave Weckl the following night.
You can guess the answer, right. Overflow crowds for Weckl and about half
full for the Claytons. I don't know how you feel about fusion in the debate
about pop vs jazz, but young people are much more into fusion just as forty
somethings are into smooth jazz.
BTW, in my post I didn't mean to imply that jazz is evolving into smooth
jazz. What I meant was the absconding of the jazz name for non-jazz music
(e.g., filling jazz festivals with smooth jazz and pop).
"Zoot" <aba...@ns-design.com> wrote in message
news:4700fe11.04010...@posting.google.com...
Jon Meltzer
Fool"?
Larry Smithee
> toto, but he does have a valid point regarding a lack of respect for people
> by some posters in this newsgroup who like smooth jazz. You (Larry Smithee)
> and I may agree that smooth jazz is pabulum (sic), but if stations want to
> play it and people want to listen to it then so be it.
Others and I on this ng have repeatedly stated that there is no
problem with anyone listening to whatever they choose and that radio
can cater to the masses as they always have. Although in truth we
should describe this process as "hearing" music, since listening
requires skills that most smooth aficionados have yet to master. But
really, I'm fine with that. I could give a rats ass what they care to
hear in the way of music. Where I draw the line in the sand is the
idea that so called "smooth" is equal in content and musical substance
and validity as that of the master jazz musicians, some of whom you
listed. In fact, I contend that this pop fluff isn't even jazz.
On a side note, I have a young nephew (college sophomore) who emailed
me recently to ask advice about selecting some jazz music recordings.
He's not a musician and struggled to describe what he heard on a radio
station located near him that he like but was not able to definably
describe it in terms of style or identify the specific musicians he
heard. One thing he did reveal is that he wasn't interested in "that
jazz music that his parents listen to". Knowing his parents as I do,
he's referring to smooth. I sent him a questionnaire of sorts in an
effort to narrow down what he might be looking for in terms of style
so that I could guide him toward his interest. It appears that what he
was looking for was post bop players, particularly saxophonists. Had
he not told me to avoid his parents listening taste I probably would
have assumed that what he heard that peaked his interest was smooth
pop, in which case I would have guided him toward that genre. And
that's my point. I don't care what anyone chooses to listen to. I'm
not attempting to kill it (again I don't care) but let's just call a
rat's ass what it is on an ng like this one.
Larry
Zoot
> The problem is that jazz festivals are not going to be economically viable
> unless the promoters include some "popular" music to attract more attendees.
> And there just aren't enough mainstream jazz musicians to go around, that is
> musicians with a name who can attract a crowd.. It's not like the golden age
> of the 50's anymore. Let's face it, the audience for what you and I call
> jazz is shrinking. Just attend any concert featuring mainstream jazz and the
> bulk of the audience are senior citizens, at least that is the way it is
> around here. Let me give you an example. Last year there was a jazz festival
> featuring the Clayton Brothers one night and Dave Weckl the following night.
> You can guess the answer, right. Overflow crowds for Weckl and about half
> full for the Claytons. I don't know how you feel about fusion in the debate
> about pop vs jazz, but young people are much more into fusion just as forty
> somethings are into smooth jazz.
fusion came from jazz when advanced rockers discovered that in jazz
you can think out loud. they just keep there style and sensibility in
tact when they play jazz. i like it just fine at 59&1/2
sum1
Always glad to be of service, Larry.
sum1
> the
> problem is that instrumental pop is filling the bill at jazz venues
> like jazz festivals, radio time and record bins by people that got the
> word that jazz is an important american art form but don't know what
> it is.
I suspect that most of the smooth jazz fans don't care whether jazz is
an American art form, they just like good music. The pretentious cats
can be found in "real" jazz clubs where guys on saxophones make lots
of meaningful noises.
sum1
> > Jazz alarmists abound on this newsgroup! Now I don't mean to defend sum1 in
> > toto, but he does have a valid point regarding a lack of respect for people
> > by some posters in this newsgroup who like smooth jazz. You (Larry Smithee)
> > and I may agree that smooth jazz is pabulum (sic), but if stations want to
> > play it and people want to listen to it then so be it.
>
> Others and I on this ng have repeatedly stated that there is no
> problem with anyone listening to whatever they choose and that radio
> can cater to the masses as they always have.
Just as long as everyone recognizes that the masses have inferior
tastes, are less intelligent than "real" jazz fans, and by all means
stay on their side of the fence.
> Although in truth we
> should describe this process as "hearing" music, since listening
> requires skills that most smooth aficionados have yet to master.
And I suppose the masses don't watch film, they only look at movies.
By the way, how do you know this?
> But
> really, I'm fine with that. I could give a rats ass what they care to
> hear in the way of music. Where I draw the line in the sand is the
> idea that so called "smooth" is equal in content and musical substance
> and validity as that of the master jazz musicians, some of whom you
> listed. In fact, I contend that this pop fluff isn't even jazz.
Contend all you like. Most of us know differently.
Dave
I personally think that smooth jazz is jazz...to a point, I think that
the melody lines don't hold much substance but like what was stated,
it sells. I'm one of the few people who is under 40 that likes
mainstream jazz, the greats, got Monk's blue Note stuff playing right
now and it's rare that a Miles recording of any era isn't playing on
my stereo. I like all of his periods but I'm not here to debate that,
cute title, birth of the fool. Oh speaking of that, I just listened to
tose sides a few days ago and realized how nice they sound, I had
heard them but never really listened. I'm probably the only 17 year
old that pays attention to the musicians of the golden age, I don't
know that for a fact of course. Oh, just to jump to Monk, I'm
listening to that version of "misterioso" on blue note, is that Sunny
Rollins on tennor? He just played a great solo.
A comment about smooth jazz. One could argue that Miles' '80's period
was smooth jazz, I disagree. The only recordings I have heard thus far
from those years has been his performances at the Montruex festival.
What Miles was doing was improvising, I find that the smooth players I
have heard just play the melody and don't really play off the changes,
but my theory isn't nearly as advanced as any jazz musician, so I
could be wrong. Ok, I'm rambling now, so I'll be quite, just some
thoughts.
Peace,
Dave
sum1
> Hello,
> I personally think that smooth jazz is jazz...
Well, most people are with you on this, Dave. It's just a few noisy
guys on a jazz jihad that claim otherwise.
Nick
> A comment about smooth jazz. One could argue that Miles' '80's period
> was smooth jazz, I disagree.
Some of his stuff definitely wasn't smooth. Then again, some members
of this group define smooth jazz as instrumental covers of recent pop
songs, so that would make Miles' versions of "Time after Time" and
"Human Nature" pretty smooth.
But ultimately, a good response to this question would be "Who cares
what the label is? You either like it or you don't."
The only recordings I have heard thus far
> from those years has been his performances at the Montruex festival.
> What Miles was doing was improvising, I find that the smooth players I
> have heard just play the melody and don't really play off the changes,
Lots of smooth jazz has soloing, but it usually isn't as extensive (or
frankly, as interesting) as most of the solos you'll hear in
mainstream jazz. And more and more, solos are being left out entirely,
which is mostly due to radio getting more conservative about what they
want to feature. Pretty sad.
> but my theory isn't nearly as advanced as any jazz musician, so I
> could be wrong. Ok, I'm rambling now, so I'll be quite, just some
> thoughts.
>
> Peace,
> Dave
You've got some good thoughts, Dave. Keep listening.
Zoot
most people don't know jazz
you don't
Patrick Powers
>
> Just as long as everyone recognizes that the masses have inferior
> tastes, are less intelligent than "real" jazz fans, and by all means
> stay on their side of the fence.
>
Now you're getting the idea. There is hope for you yet, m'boy!
>
> And I suppose the masses don't watch film, they only look at movies.
>
By George, I think he's got it!
Larry Smithee
You know, after several months of this constant wrangling I think Sum
really IS beginning to get it. Way to go Sum.
Larry
sum1
Broadly speaking, this is true. "Most people" quite naturally
referred to people who know something about jazz and was not meant to
include Himalayan yak herders.
But you knew that, didn't you, you contentious old fart.
sum1
The following appears to have been copied in its entirety. Please
investigate and report back to the group ASAP.
lcsm...@earthlink.net (Larry Smithee) wrote in message news:<3cdae13f.04010...@posting.google.com>...