Origins of Smooth Jazz -- Not a surprise

[Larry Kart]

A post from the Jazz West Coast site:

Smooth jazz is not a cousin to legitimate jazz, in fact it isn't even

related. When the radio consultants who cooked it up in focus groups

had settled on a sound, they needed a name. They went back to focus

groups and discovered that the term "jazz" had a high recognition

factor so they tacked that name on. The unfortunate result is a

generation of people who think they understand jazz, but in fact have

never heard it. Smooth jazz wasn't part of the century-long artistic

development of jazz, so it's not correct to even call it an art form.

The many paths that jazz has taken have been a result almost

exclusively of artists striving to find new creative directions. I

don't know of any case, perhaps someone here does, wherein a school of

jazz was created purely for profit potential. Smooth jazz, however,

was created strictly to make money for radio stations. Artistic merit

was never a consideration. Had the creators called it smooth music or

something else, the identity crisis that jazz now suffers would not

exist.

I have mentioned here before that I worked with a consultant who later

became one of the three original smooth jazz creators. Another radio

network colleague of mine later created WQCD, the first smooth jazz

station in the country. As far as I know, neither of these guys knew

or cared anything about real jazz.

Morrie

[Dan Gould]

Radio can't create a format in the absence of music that fits the format. What did they do in these focus groups? Describe the music they wanted to play? No, they played instrumental pop music by artists like the G-ster, Sanborn and I imagine George Winston. All of those guys had some claim to a "jazz" background of one sort or another.

[Guy Berger]

I don't think the statement in bold is true.

A post from the Jazz West Coast site:

Smooth jazz is not a cousin to legitimate jazz, in fact it isn't even

related. When the radio consultants who cooked it up in focus groups

had settled on a sound, they needed a name. They went back to focus

groups and discovered that the term "jazz" had a high recognition

factor so they tacked that name on. The unfortunate result is a

generation of people who think they understand jazz, but in fact have

never heard it. Smooth jazz wasn't part of the century-long artistic

development of jazz, so it's not correct to even call it an art form.

The many paths that jazz has taken have been a result almost

exclusively of artists striving to find new creative directions. I

don't know of any case, perhaps someone here does, wherein a school of

jazz was created purely for profit potential. Smooth jazz, however,

was created strictly to make money for radio stations. Artistic merit

was never a consideration. Had the creators called it smooth music or

something else, the identity crisis that jazz now suffers would not

exist.

I have mentioned here before that I worked with a consultant who later

became one of the three original smooth jazz creators. Another radio

network colleague of mine later created WQCD, the first smooth jazz

station in the country. As far as I know, neither of these guys knew

or cared anything about real jazz.

Morrie

[Alexander]

I don't think the statement in bold is true.

Smooth jazz wasn't part of the century-long artistic

development of jazz,

Neither do I. Groups like the Yellowjackets, the Rippingtons and Spyro Gyra, while not my cup of tea, are legit outgrowths of jazz fusion. George Benson, David Sanborn, and Chuck Mangione all have real jazz cred (Chuck was even in the Jazz Messengers!).

[Big Beat Steve]

Maybe so, Guy, Alexander, et al:

BUT - you may have recorded jazz as much as you'd care for as long as you'd care; however if you shift the style of your music to something that is NOT jazz, is THAT jazz still jazz just because OTHER music you did a more or less long time ago was jazz?

To go a bit back in history: Take former jazz artists such as Nat King Cole and their much later pop hits. Would these still be considered jazz? Would you consider these part of the history of JAZZ? If so, would there be any substantial reason for this that goes beyond some sort of tribute to the artists' former accomplishments?

Or to go back even further: Quite a few sweet band leaders of the 30s started out in "hot jazz" bands of the 20s. Would their "sweet" output still be classified as "swing" or "jazz" just on the strength of their earlier sylistic allegiance?

In short, why should anybody be fooled by labels and tags slapped onto a product by marketing and accept any statement such as "I want this to be jazz so I am going to call it jazz" at face value?

[JEV1A]

A post from the Jazz West Coast site:

Smooth jazz is not a cousin to legitimate jazz, in fact it isn't even

related. When the radio consultants who cooked it up in focus groups

had settled on a sound, they needed a name. They went back to focus

groups and discovered that the term "jazz" had a high recognition

factor so they tacked that name on. The unfortunate result is a

generation of people who think they understand jazz, but in fact have

never heard it. Smooth jazz wasn't part of the century-long artistic

development of jazz, so it's not correct to even call it an art form.

The many paths that jazz has taken have been a result almost

exclusively of artists striving to find new creative directions. I

don't know of any case, perhaps someone here does, wherein a school of

jazz was created purely for profit potential. Smooth jazz, however,

was created strictly to make money for radio stations. Artistic merit

was never a consideration. Had the creators called it smooth music or

something else, the identity crisis that jazz now suffers would not

exist.

I have mentioned here before that I worked with a consultant who later

became one of the three original smooth jazz creators. Another radio

network colleague of mine later created WQCD, the first smooth jazz

station in the country. As far as I know, neither of these guys knew

or cared anything about real jazz.

Morrie

First off... Jazz is Jazz and that musical form and or genre should be just that!

Not Smooth Jazz or Real Jazz or Straight Ahead Jazz... just JAZZ!

Its the suits and record company execs guiding us into new territories not set forth by the original art form.

Smooth Jazz can also be catagorized as Adult Contemporary but since it makes money, very few real music critics complain about the term Jazz still being referred or stolen to tag what is really a fabricated music made to make money as the post so plainly states.

Thank you and lets hope real jazz fans realize this.

JEV / The Don Ellis Story

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Maybe so, Guy, Alexander, et al:

BUT - you may have recorded jazz as much as you'd care for as long as you'd care; however if you shift the style of your music to something that is NOT jazz, is THAT jazz still jazz just because OTHER music you did a more or less long time ago was jazz?

To go a bit back in history: Take former jazz artists such as Nat King Cole and their much later pop hits. Would these still be considered jazz? Would you consider these part of the history of JAZZ? If so, would there be any substantial reason for this that goes beyond some sort of tribute to the artists' former accomplishments?

Or to go back even further: Quite a few sweet band leaders of the 30s started out in "hot jazz" bands of the 20s. Would their "sweet" output still be classified as "swing" or "jazz" just on the strength of their earlier sylistic allegiance?

In short, why should anybody be fooled by labels and tags slapped onto a product by marketing and accept any statement such as "I want this to be jazz so I am going to call it jazz" at face value?

I don't think it's simply a question of these artists having earlier jazz accomplishments. It's quite hard, for example, to make a clear separation between George Benson's early recordings and those post "Breezin'" as far as jazz content went - certainly, the jazz content became less and certainly it became less interesting and vital, but I don't think it ever went entirely, even from his most commercial albums. And I don't think it's right, just because some jazz is not very good - or even bloody awful, as may be - to say that it isn't jazz.

Nat "King" Cole is another good example. There are definitely Cole recordings with almost zero jazz content - "Those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer" is one. But those are in the minority even in Cole's post trio work. Much of his work retains jazz phrasing, which was an intimate and essential part of his style.

And it's possible to trace an unbroken development from Soul Jazz into Smooth Jazz, and to show how it came about, which I'll post about this afternoon.

MG

[Niko]

I don't think it's simply a question of these artists having earlier jazz accomplishments. It's quite hard, for example, to make a clear separation between George Benson's early recordings and those post "Breezin'" as far as jazz content went - certainly, the jazz content became less and certainly it became less interesting and vital, but I don't think it ever went entirely, even from his most commercial albums. And I don't think it's right, just because some jazz is not very good - or even bloody awful, as may be - to say that it isn't jazz.

clearly off-topic but years ago i talked to the guitarist/vocalist of this band

http://www.myspace.com/therainrock

and he said the only artist he listened to was George Benson

(edit to add: the music sounds too derivative of a bunch of other stuff for his statement to be true)

Edited February 25, 2008 by Niko

[king ubu]

I always think of chicks with their boobs out when I hear of "adult contemporary"...

by the way, I am smooth, too, so to say, a smooth operating blue blood, we might add

[Big Beat Steve]

MG, it's not a question of the degree of jazz content or of good or bad, etc., and not even a question of lineage.

There may actually be some "legitimate" "smooth jazz" in the same way that some "nightclub jazz" was recorded in earlier decades too. Sofar, so good. Benson may be a case in point.

The key problem, however, is what else there is out there trying to sail under "smooth jazz" flag and thus tarnishes everything else, including the name of jazz itself if the unwary public at large is being led to believe "this is jazz". Don't ask me for examples or names; I've heard quite a bit here and there that has been tagged as "smooth jazz being the latest thing in jazz" in the media, and found a lot of it bloody awful jazzwise. OK, more agreeable to listen to as a sort of "music to brush your teeth by" than, say, certain death metal or gangsta rap nerve-racking rhythms :D but swinging jazz in the commonly accepted (broad) sense of the word, even including the more subtle, subdued varieties? Nope, not in a zillion years! Just watered-down "adult pop" where maybe, just maybe the occasional jazz cliché is repeated here and there.

[king ubu]

saw Benson and Al Jarreau on tv this weekend - yuck! all the girls had their boobs out because this was so adulter... ahm, adultary?

[mikeweil]

Smooth Jazz is a Fusion - of Jazz and Elevator Muzak!

[king ubu]

Smooth Jazz is a Fusion - of Jazz and Elevator Muzak!

so it's an adult bastard, really?

[jazzbo]

I've a silly idea that quite a bit of the harder edged (maybe less label generated) smooth jazz was influenced by 80's Miles. . . .

Edited February 25, 2008 by jazzbo

[Teasing the Korean]

While I don't like smooth jazz at all, I think the quote that opened the thread is riddled with error.

[Dan Gould]

I think every single one of us would agree that there is very little or absolutely no "jazz" in "smooth jazz". Let's not lose sight of that.

However, the idea that it was created by a bunch of radio consultants is ludicrous on its face. Did they tell George Benson to start playing crap in the mid-70s, don't worry, in about 15 years we'll have a radio format for ya.

As Alex points out, the Rippingtons, Yellowjackets, and other bands came out of the fusion era. But an even better example is what was once a linchpin of the "smooth jazz" format: Spyro Gyra. Founded in 1974!

If we're talking chicken and egg here, which came first? This supposed meeting of radio programmers or Spryo Gyra?

[Rosco]

How about the later recordings of Wes Montgomery? (almost certainly a model for Benson)

Or much of the output of CTI? (particularly Grover Washington, Bob James)

...say, maybe Creed Taylor is to blame for it all?

You might even argue that a band like The Crusaders provide a link back to 'soul jazz'.

As stomach churning as most smooth jazz may be, to suggest it was conceived, fully formed, to fit some radio format seems like historical revisionism.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I think the question of the origins of Smooth Jazz has to be looked at within the context of what one might call “the jazz stream of black popular music”.

In the thirties and early forties, the jazz stream of black popular music encompassed pretty well all contemporary jazz – swing. As Bebop developed, even though musicians like Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie wanted to be popular musicians as their predecessors had been, there were aesthetic pulls that drew them into places where (most of) the black public wouldn’t, perhaps couldn’t, go. And at the same time, much black popular music was going off into yet another different direction, which was eventually named R&B.

But there were jazz musicians whose work remained such an integral part of black popular music that it is very difficult to draw a hard and fast line between them and R&B musicians and not have huge arguments about where to draw that line – arguments on which both sides will be right. (All discographers since Jepsen have included R&B records in jazz discographies because of this real difficulty.) The music those musicians were producing was eventually named Soul Jazz.

Because Soul Jazz remained an integral part of popular black music, it partook of all the same trends. Indeed, it was often jazz musicians who started those trends: Ray Charles; James Brown; and George Benson are people who obviously had a foot in each camp and are all important for the development of R&B. So, most developments in Soul Jazz had their counterparts in, or were themselves the counterparts of, R&B developments. This is a development stream that is rather unlike that of what one might call the main stream of modern jazz.

So we find in the late forties that R&B is a music that is very largely based on Swing but more heavily reliant on blues, in which the dominant expressions were those made by vocalists and tenor players: Joe Liggins; Roy Milton; Louis Jordan; Illinois Jacquet; Wild Bill Moore; Hal Singer and others.

In the early fifties, Gospel music began to be incorporated into R&B – some of Clyde McPhatter’s work with Billy Ward & the Dominos was of this nature, as was that of Billy Wright, Prince of the Blues. But it was Ray Charles who made the biggest impact and brought those experiments into a style, which eventually was named Soul. And as that was happening, the organ was being incorporated into Soul Jazz; the tenor organ combo was developed by Eddie “Lockjaw” Davis, particularly his use of Doc Bagby (who had been the A&R director for Gotham records, famous for its Gospel records on some – and possibly more than some – of which Bagby had played), and the organ trio by Wild Bill Davis. Organists such as Milt Buckner, Bill Doggett, Tommy Dean, Baby Face Willette, Johnny “Hammond” Smith, Hank Marr and probably Sam Lazar began to develop their styles in this period, though Jimmy Smith later brought about a technical revolution in organ playing which has overshadowed these early developments, most of which weren’t recorded anyway. Following Smith, many more organists appeared and generally their styles were, much more than Smith’s, who was basically a Bebopper in his early days, heavily based in Gospel music.

In the mid-sixties, following some precursor attempt in the New Orleans area, James Brown – with the assistance of, initially, Nat Jones, a musician who’d worked in Chicago big bands in the thirties, then, after Jones’ death, Pee Wee Ellis, a Rollins-influenced modernist – developed Funk. As with Ray Charles, there was a substantial element of jazz in Brown’s music and it wasn’t long before Brown himself was making jazz albums based on the new thing, and other musicians too. This is basically what is meant by Acid Jazz.

The early seventies brought about Disco. There were clear social and economic reasons for this change. The organ rooms were disappearing as the better heeled residents of the ghetto managed to get out into suburbia, and as the black audience for the cinema was growing fast – the only part of the cinema audience that was growing at the time (it’s not clear whether this was caused by blaxploitation films or was the reason for them, but there was definitely a feedback loop) – and as organ rooms were hit by anti-drug measures. And with Disco, a club-owner didn’t need to hire a band – a DJ or two could keep people dancing through the night. And Disco was easy (for white people) to dance to; an important consideration out in the newly integrated suburbs.

If Deodato’s “Prelude” wasn’t the first Disco album, it was the first to have what became the hallmark of the genre – lush orchestration, beautifully recorded in this case by Mr Van Gelder. And it wasn’t long before the lushness generally took over from any actual creative improvising (though there are some great exceptions). And it also was an extremely short time before the major labels took the music over.

Smooth Soul, and Smooth Jazz, seem to me to have been a reaction against the mechanistic and formularistic tendencies of Disco. From being drowned in orchestras, singers wanted to be heard. There were no longer blues shouters like Jimmy Rushing who could sing in front of the Basie band, or Walter Brown or Joe Turner. They were singers like Whitney Houston, Anita Baker, Sade, Luther Vandross and George Benson. People who, to be frank, epitomised the tastes and aspirations of the new black suburbanites. And Benson was a leading figure of both the Smooth Soul and Smooth Jazz movements. And both of these movements – essentially one movement – were eased (or perhaps kicked) out of the ghetto by Rap and Hip Hop generally. But unlike all previous kinds of R&B, and probably helped a lot by “quiet storm” radio programming, there seems to have been no time when this music wasn’t deemed fit by the industry powers for crossover. And probably rightly so, because by that time, there was little appreciable difference between black and white suburbanites.

The thing is, once music moves out into the suburbs, it can’t change because the suburbs are all about stability. Cities are all about dynamism and opportunities, and that’s where new music comes from. So we’ve had thirty years of this stuff.

MG

[JSngry]

[Big Beat Steve]

Nicely written summary of black music at the edges of jazz, MG, and though I am all in favor of certain forms of R&B being appreciated as valid forms of jazz (as you know) I don't see the link with the entire "smooth jazz" thing.

Not all Afro-American music is or was jazz, especially not all post-1960 Afro-American popular music (cf. the entire "Disco" fad). And is "smooth jazz" only about black musicians?

And as for the errors (or not) of the opening quote, it all depends on how you look at it. Of course the "Smooth jazz" tag had not been coined in the 70s yet (and the way I remember it a lot of that brand of music marketed under the "fusion" tag sounded like all those cats were trying to grab their share of up to date popular black music too - sort of sophisticated disco, if you want ... And I admit it did bug me the way even the most commercial stuff marketed under the "fusion" label was hailed as THE music that jazz in its totality was all about). So the "soft fusion" music was already there that later was being marketed under "smooth jazz" but does that mean this label (the way it had been coined by marketing people) was any less artificial and anything more than an attempt at cashing in on the "jazz" label because "jazz" was considered hip, sophisticated, cool or whatever ...

As noted on other threads where this topic has been discussed, I feel it is this usurpation of an attribute that this music has virtually no rights to at all that jazz fans take offense with.

If you "smooth" guys want to market your music, make sure you can stand on your own feet and do not have to rely on other tags.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Big Beat Steve

[Teasing the Korean]

I'm always puzzled about people attacking smooth jazz on principle. I could care less about the principle, it's the end result that I find offensive.

There have benn all kinds of jazz hybrids for the entire history of the music, and some have worked better than others. Smooth jazz just happens to be the most godawful sounding of the lot (that I've heard, at least).

[Dan Gould]

Nicely written summary of black music at the edges of jazz, MG, and though I am all in favor of certain forms of R&B being appreciated as valid forms of jazz (as you know) I don't see the link with the entire "smooth jazz" thing.

Not all Afro-American music is or was jazz, especially not all post-1960 Afro-American popular music (cf. the entire "Disco" fad). And is "smooth jazz" only about black musicians?

And as for the errors (or not) of the opening quote, it all depends on how you look at it. Of course the "Smooth jazz" tag had not been coined in the 70s yet (and the way I remember it a lot of that brand of music marketed under the "fusion" tag sounded like all those cats were trying to grab their share of up to date popular black music too - sort of sophisticated disco, if you want ... And I admit it did bug me the way even the most commercial stuff marketed under the "fusion" label was hailed as THE music that jazz in its totality was all about). So the "soft fusion" music was already there that later was being marketed under "smooth jazz" but does that mean this label (the way it had been coined by marketing people) was any less artificial and anything more than an attempt at cashing in on the "jazz" label because "jazz" was considered hip, sophisticated, cool or whatever ...

As noted on other threads where this topic has been discussed, I feel it is this usurpation of an attribute that this music has virtually no rights to at all that jazz fans take offense with.

If you "smooth" guys want to market your music, make sure you can stand on your own feet and do not have to rely on other tags.

Let's think more about this "tag" ...

Was the music instrumental (mostly)? Yes.

Does the music have some improvisational content, even it mostly consists of simple R&B licks or little curly-cues on top of the overly-pretty melody? Yes.

Sounds like what it is - warmed over pseudo-jazz. I mean, what were they going to call it? Smooth Widgets?

[John L]

Smooth jazz comes in different shapes and forms. There is the seemingly machine-generated elevator music-type stuff that doesn't have much to do with real jazz. Then there is the soul jazz + funk quiet storm offshoot that MG is talking about. That does come out of the tradition, for better or worse.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Always appreciate subtlety, Jim!

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Not all Afro-American music is or was jazz, especially not all post-1960 Afro-American popular music (cf. the entire "Disco" fad).

I think it's quite difficult to say that the numerous Disco albums by David Newman, Sonny Criss, Blue Mitchell, Willis Jackson, Lou Donaldson, Lonnie Smith, Grover Washington Jr, Johnny "Hammond" Smith, Charles Earland, Joe Thomas, Houston Person, Stanley Turrentine (oh, I'm bored with listing them) were NOT jazz. It's easy to say that the best of these albums don't represent their best work (though some are pretty damn good) and that the worst of them are rubbish. But jazz can be rubbish, too, you know.

And is "smooth jazz" only about black musicians?

I don't know - all the Smooth jazz I've heard (and known who was playing it) has been. But I've never (knowingly) heard Kenny G, for example.

MG