All Activity

To give my own response to the post, I have always been impressed by the approach taken by the likes of the Jazz Wax blog, which takes a very expansive approach to "Jazz". It includes big band pop, R&B, mambo records and easy listening, for example, as a part of Jazz's story. Having said that, I am not really sure that it would be necessary to include those musics in a historical overview of Jazz, despite the very substantial and natural overlap they have with the music. Such a book or course would be bloated. I think that in many cases the commercial jazz of the late seventies through mid nineties has less in common with "Jazz" than the likes of Bacharach or Perez Prado. That is despite the fact that, unlike them, that commercial jazz can lay claim to adopted nephew status by way of a line of descent through the commercial jazz fusion(s) of the mid 1970s. Despite that, I do think that the radio friendly "jazz" of that period should be recognised as a very substantial chapter in the history of Jazz, as a whole. It was the artistic terminus of many trends that had existed in jazz (and specifically but not exclusively fusion) up to that point, but, more importantly, it was extremely popular among people who regarded themselves as jazz fans. Extremely popular to the point that it absolutely outsold the music most of us enjoy. It was also the form of jazz that probably most influenced non-jazz genres, like R&B, acid jazz, gospel, neo-soul etc. As such, I think that it does probably need a chapter or a lecture or a podcast, as one of the key trends of that two decade period that still shapes the music. (the other key trends that would need to be included in this notional book or course for the years 1977 - 1995, in my view, would be the acoustic jazz revival, the emergence of an international and institutionalised avantgarde improvisation, and the explosion of reissues with its black hole effect). All of this is without prejudice to the fact that, like I assume is the case for most of us, I do not really like 90% of the music in this category. There are some exceptions there but I don't think it was a particularly fruitful period for jazz, artistically.

Maria Schneider: Data Lords

Op.18, Op.32, Op.36

An old favorite -

It is full of zingers.

I have to add something here as a cautionary tale. I have Ubuntu running on several laptops & have installed it on quite a few more for family & friends. Dell laptops make it pretty easy. You just press F2 or F9 after you press the power button, go into the bios screen and change the boot order, boot from the USB drive and install Ubuntu. Hp laptops on the other hand, can be a huge pain in the ass. Some Hp computers have the bios "locked" to a Windows operating system. I managed to hack a couple of these to get Ubuntu onto them but it was incredibly difficult. It took me days to figure it out. Installing & re-installing Ubuntu with different configurations in the bios until I finally got it to stick. I have little interest in doing that again. The worst thing about it, is that I managed it on one, duplicated the process on a second, and it didn't work. Ha ha ha.

I can like Incognito, and have definitely enjoyed Bluey's remixesm but I've never really thought of them as "jazz". That's just good pop music, full of hooks and Easter eggs , and yes, there were dance clubs in 1975 (and later) where this was the groove, and people called it "jazz" . But you know..

Currently listening to some of these recordings by the London Haydn Quartet.

😆 Mel Jablonski lol

Welcome aboard, Europeans in particular!

Not until today ... 👍- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cellar_Door

Welcome aboard!

This is a good album that I found sealed in Stereo Jack's dollar bin years ago. I still laugh when I see the cover picture because I thought it was a sunny side up egg at first.

I don't believe that you can download Ubuntu onto your computer as an operating system. What I have had to do is download the .iso file and "write" that to a USB thumb drive making it "bootable", using something like Rufus. Then, you boot off of the thumbdrive and you can try it for a bit or install it. I would recommend trying it first. When you install it, you can make your PC capable of "dual boot", which will let you choose which operating system to boot into (Windows or Ubuntu) but I have never done that so I can't tell you if it works well. If you choose to use dual boot, you might need to worry about how much memory you allow Ubuntu to use, as Windows runs using "virtual memory" that grabs extra hard drive space to run smoothly. If you take too much of your hard drive for Ubuntu, you Windows system might run very slowly.

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)

This Onion article from back in the day is a classic: https://theonion.com/no-one-sets-out-to-be-a-smooth-jazz-musician-1819584390/ I think that the most authentically interesting about smooth jazz proper is the intersection with the contemporary trends in "urban contemporary" R&B. From a British point of view, the likes of Incognito and Sade of some sort might have been the last time that jazz of some sort was in the charts. I'm always amazed at the love for Incognito (who I never really enjoyed) among both listeners of a certain age and also younger musicians. Every Incognito fan I have ever met regards himself or herself as a "jazz" fan. Sade is obviously having a big comeback at the moment among younger listeners, although that is perhaps more ambiguous in its relation to jazz. I was also interested to find out that the Fast Show's Jazz Club sketch ("Niiiiice!") which at the time I regarded as such an attack on jazz, was in fact intended by Johnny Thomson, who regarded himself as a big jazz fan, as some sort of purificatory distancing from the excesses of critically acclaimed jazz. His own music picks can be found here, and are clearly Fuzak-aligned: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2016/nov/11/john-thomson-london-jazz-festival-fast-show-cold-feet

👍

February 24 Vladimir Chekasin - 1947

Before there was "smooth jazz" there was "quiet storm", which was to me a genre that was created (initially) after the music had happened rather than vice-versa. Who among us does not like us some prime Anita Baker? Or...

Kevin, my hard drive is 930 gig, and I have rarely used 300g of it. Do you think I should try downloading ubuntu onto the half that is never used?