Forums

Starting off this cold winter day wtih the sixth cd in the "Tales from Topographic Oceans" Super Deluxe box set, instrumental mixes from the second LP in the original release. These instrumental mixex are fun to here.

Rather an animated discussion in such a brief span of time, so you touched on a subject that either is a bone of contention to many or a log-felt oversight to others.  Personally I'd side with the basic statements made by Dan Gould, Niko and Kevin Bresnahan further up in this thread about how things ought to be weighted when the WIDE field of jazz is discussed. But OTOH I have to admit that while I'd never add anything typically "smooth jazz" to my collection there are such recordings out here that when listening to them accidentally you sort of get at least a "jazzish" vibe that is not off-putting. And besides, aren't the limits of this "smooth" genre rather fluid? I'd wager a bet that some of the MUCH more commercial efforts from the output of Wes Montgomery or George Benson, to name just two, would not be a million miles away from what is commonly labeled "smooth jazz" elsewhere. As can be seen from the track listings on many compilation "smooth" or "lounge" or "for lovers", etc. jazz CDs  that have been thrown on the market since the 90s. An inevitable trend, of course, in all this is that once such a genre on the outskirts of straight-ahead jazz is admitted into "jazz" then there will be many who claim this now is what jazz is all about and what all jazz fans will have to embrace in order to be with it and this is where all the marketing clout goes under the flag of "jazz". Happened with jazz rock and then fusion in the 70s, etc. And of course this does not sit well with many. Rightly so.  Not to mention that there has been quite a lot of music during recent decades that tried to sail under the banner of "jazz" because "jazz" always had a "hip" enough marketable image to it but all that seemed to have been "jazz" about that music was that it audibly was neither rock nor pop nor Black Music nor folk/ethno. So what remains as a tag to paste on? Jazz. For what good? To ACTUAL jazz and to jazz listeners, in particular? So IMO in the end it all depends on how you emphasize a "borderline" subcategory such as "smooth jazz" vs outright "straight-ahead" jazz in the overall presentation. And this is where I think many jazz listeners, fans and collectors willl sternly disagree in accordance with their personal preferences and preconceptions of what is jazz and what isn't. It seems to depend on what kind and degree of "crossover" (which means "dilution" of jazz to hardcore jazz followers anyway) you are prepared to accept.  I remember the outcries or horror by many purists when Neo-Swing was all the rage througout the 90s (before abating to a trickle that goes on to this day but is under the radar of most). Visibly this kind of "crossover" cross-pollination of swing-era jazz, R&B and lounge pop with various styles of rock (from rockabilly to punk) did not sit well with many. Though Neo-Swing never claimed to be what "jazz is all about now" (contrary to jazz rock and fusion way back then ...). I always found and still find quite a bit of it enjoyable and entertaining WITHIN my jazz listening (when the time is right ...), contrary to all that fusion stuff, for example.  In short, different strokes . .. and a debate that probably can never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.

Can't say I really enjoy it--not like "Lovers" which I think is excellent.

Another suggestion for you: The Rose of Tibet by Lionel Davidson.  A very fun romp!  

Hello:  I would like to thank the forum administrators for giving me the opportunity to share my knowledge and concerns with so many wonderful music lovers. Thank you for accepting me. Regards  from Valencia (España)