Should Bob James, David Benoit, etc., be in jazz guides and syllabuses?

[Rabshakeh]

Really I am just interested in your views.

The likes of Dave Koz, Chris Botti, latter day Bob James or David Benoit are central to what a large part of the listening public has liked about jazz for decades. Commercial and popular easy jazz; some good tunes, emotional when needed, yearly Christmas releases, good for driving to, etc. This stuff is and remains very popular. It is not really the kind of thing that the forum members enjoy, though. 

I'm interested to know whether the members of this forum think these artists and their ilk should be held out as important jazz artists that kids and uninformed first time listeners should be encouraged to go and track down? Should they get a chapter in a notional new version of Ted Gioia's book, or an episode in the even more notional enlarged Ken Burns documentary?

Sorry. Idle Monday morning thought. 

[clifford_thornton]

depends on what else is in the course.

I think if I were teaching a course on the music, there might be more interesting and creative commercial jazz artists to spotlight. Even among the contemporary scene, I'd hold up James Brandon Lewis & The Messthetics, Vijay Iyer/Arooj Aftab, the late jaimie branch, and Natural Information Society as those who have crossed over a bit.

[HutchFan]

A book that aims to examine 20th Century American Literature is likely to focus on "literary" authors like Hemingway, Faulkner, Roth, and Morrison.  And -- unless the aim is to examine "popular fiction" -- it's unlikely that the book will focus on Michael Crichton and John Grisham, even though these authors probably sold more books.

So, I can see how there would be a similar distinction in the jazz world -- between music that's more commercial as opposed to music that's more artistic.  Of course, this is all a relative thing and subject to change over time. (For many years, many people in the musical critical establishment didn't consider ANY jazz to be artistic!)  So the definition of "artistic" is always a moving target.  Furthermore, sometimes the commercial and the artistic are an overlapping Venn diagram. (See Ellington, Edward K.)

Ultimately, I think what should be included in our theoretical book really depends on the author's intentions.  What is the scope of their examination?  Is it all jazz -- including the "pop" forms?  Or is it limited to the stuff that's (relatively) more "artistic"?  

My 2 cents. 

 

[Rabshakeh]

1 minute ago, clifford_thornton said:

depends on what else is in the course.

This is a fairly generous course/book. It has a chapter or lecture on soul jazz, cool and west coast jazz, fusion, etc. It's not a Ken Burns thing that is very narrowly defined.

[HutchFan]

1 minute ago, Rabshakeh said:

This is a fairly generous course/book. It has a chapter or lecture on soul jazz, cool and west coast jazz, fusion, etc. It's not a Ken Burns thing that is very narrowly defined.

Then smooth jazz or pop-jazz or whatever you'd like to call it should be included in the book/course, IMO.

 

[Rabshakeh]

2 minutes ago, HutchFan said:

A book that aims to examine 20th Century American Literature is likely to focus on "literary" authors like Hemingway, Faulkner, Roth, and Morrison.  And -- unless the aim is to examine "popular fiction" -- it's unlikely that the book will focus on Michael Crichton and John Grisham, even though these authors probably sold more books.

So, I can see how there would be a similar distinction in the jazz world -- between music that's more commercial as opposed to music that's more artistic.  Of course, this is all a relative thing and subject to change over time. (For many years, many people in the musical critical establishment didn't consider ANY jazz to be artistic!)  So the definition of "artistic" is always a moving target.  Furthermore, sometimes the commercial and the artistic are an overlapping Venn diagram. (See Ellington, Edward K.)

Ultimately, I think what should be included in our theoretical book really depends on the author's intentions.  What is the scope of their examination?  Is it all jazz -- including the "pop" forms?  Or is it limited to the stuff that's (relatively) more "artistic"?  

My 2 cents. 

 

But if that's the case, are we not including soul jazz, however you define it? I think most of us in this forum would want the various subaltern forms of 1960s jazz included. I certainly would.

[clifford_thornton]

there's degrees of commercialism, of course... I'd rather listen to Winelight than Kenny G, and even Pharoah Sanders and Byard Lancaster could get that "keen" over a disco beat. OTOH, I might throw in some of Bob James' "Explosions" in a free jazz segment of the course. I think one could include smooth jazz but there's a way to do it and not include utter schlock.

[HutchFan]

1 minute ago, Rabshakeh said:

But if that's the case, are we not including soul jazz, however you define it? I think most of us in this forum would want the various subaltern forms of 1960s jazz included. I certainly would.

Soul jazz is DEFINITELY in my book!  Like Ellington, it's another case of overlapping Venn diagrams of commerce and art.

 

[Rabshakeh]

5 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

there's degrees of commercialism, of course... I'd rather listen to Winelight than Kenny G, and even Pharoah Sanders and Byard Lancaster could get that "keen" over a disco beat. OTOH, I might throw in some of Bob James' "Explosions" in a free jazz segment of the course. I think one could include smooth jazz but there's a way to do it and not include utter schlock.

I think that I have mentioned before, but I wouldn't be at all surprised is Smooth Jazz becomes an area of interest at some point in the near future. It is a genre that is uncool at least partly due to association with the Gorlitz machine. We've all watched as soul jazz and 70s spiritual jazz emerged from the ashes to become extremely hip. 

What form such a revival would take is unknown to me, partly because I think Smooth Jazz is a bit of an umbrella genre and also because I'm definitely of the Gorlitz-scarred generation. I suspect that the music is much better handled as singles than albums (despite being an album led genre) and some enterprising Brooklyn record label will put together a good comp at some point. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Rabshakeh

[HutchFan]

3 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

I think one could include smooth jazz but there's a way to do it and not include utter schlock.

Exactly.  There's good and bad smooth jazz -- just like every other sub-genre.

 

[Rabshakeh]

It's a funny umbrella genre. I'm not sure that the above artists are strictly smooth jazz in the way that Winelight or Kenny G are. More pop fusion, perhaps? Save for Botti who is more easy listening, maybe. 

I wasn't really meaning to ask though about whether members like smooth jazz or commercial fusion (I assume generally not that much) but really whether members regard this as a legitimate genre of jazz that is worth bringing to the attention of students. Even if the course is just a circle around the album cover for Winelight and another circle saying "Everything Else".

Edited 2 hours ago by Rabshakeh

[HutchFan]

Genres are tricky.  They're useful tools for understanding.  But always limited.

 

[clifford_thornton]

see, I always associate Grusin with smooth jazz but maybe he isn't. Obviously both Grover Washington and Mr. Gorelick can play!

cdbaby/lofi cassette smooth jazz has some interest for weirdo collectors. It's not my thing, really, but I can understand the appeal.

[Rabshakeh]

What I mean is that the likes of the Rippingtons maybe played on a different radio station, or something. 

[clifford_thornton]

okay, right. Was "fuzak" a term for this stuff? I feel like I remember that being used in the 90s.

[Rabshakeh]

Just now, clifford_thornton said:

see, I always associate Grusin with smooth jazz but maybe he isn't. Obviously both Grover Washington and Mr. Gorelick can play!

cdbaby/lofi cassette smooth jazz has some interest for weirdo collectors. It's not my thing, really, but I can understand the appeal.

"Bedroom" / underground smooth jazz...

There was a list that got published somewhere a while back. Maybe you posted it? Someone who knows his or her stuff did.

[clifford_thornton]

yes, there was a list published and I was trying to find it.

EDIT: the site it was on is gone but here's the list via discogs: https://www.discogs.com/lists/Smooth-Jazz-Underground/373593?srsltid=AfmBOoqRsc7RuuBONGFaS0nj4voHYNipEiZeUw_0BiudtJ90Iew5olli

[Rabshakeh]

A bit off topic but I reckon that a person could make a cracking double CD of post-CTI Bob James. He really does have some excellent tunes, albeit on some pretty crappy records, some times.

[AndreyHenkin]

Absolutely. Like it or not, the Windham Hill catalogue is worth discussing. And since so many jazz histories would ignore free jazz or European jazz or soul-jazz or electronics-driven jazz, why add to the problem? If you were teaching a class on heavy metal—which I do—you cannot ignore nu-metal even if it is as commercially-driven as smooth jazz.

[Rabshakeh]

3 minutes ago, AndreyHenkin said:

Absolutely. Like it or not, the Windham Hill catalogue is worth discussing. And since so many jazz histories would ignore free jazz or European jazz or soul-jazz or electronics-driven jazz, why add to the problem? If you were teaching a class on heavy metal—which I do—you cannot ignore nu-metal even if it is as commercially-driven as smooth jazz.

I forgot Windham Hill. That and the wider New Age movement was a part of this too. 

Perhaps it is a chapter on the Commercial Jazzes of the Late 1970s to early 1990s. Prior to the environmental collapse caused by the twin rise of Gorlitz and the swinging retro pop revival.

22 minutes ago, clifford_thornton said:

yes, there was a list published and I was trying to find it.

EDIT: the site it was on is gone but here's the list via discogs: https://www.discogs.com/lists/Smooth-Jazz-Underground/373593?srsltid=AfmBOoqRsc7RuuBONGFaS0nj4voHYNipEiZeUw_0BiudtJ90Iew5olli

This is a fun and quite poignant list. So many hopes and dreams on there. Guys in rented evening dress for the cover shoot, recording under the covers so their kid sleeping in the next room doesn't get woken up, etc.

[Dan Gould]

If its included its not a course or book I am interested in.

To me its easier to draw a straight line from the swing era to the  "Jazz with a Beat" (borrowing member ListeningToPrestige book title) than anything worthwhile that leads into "Smooth" "Jazz".   And I certainly can't be troubled to figure out who isn't on the level of Boney James or Dave Koz and who is doing something "worthwhile" in the genre.

It doesn't bother me at all that both genre's sought/seek "hits" - I will keep saying "Make mine Chunky" and argue that "Jazz With a Beat" all the way thru the Soul Jazz era have more in common with the origins of the music than Smooth ever will.

[JSngry]

A book?

[Niko]

The 80s edition of Berendt's jazz book would mention people like Kenny G... But, if you only have half a page for Ben Webster and a sentence or two for Johnny Griffin or Roland Kirk, someone like Kenny G cannot expect more than to be part of a list "further saxophone players in 1980s fusion jazz, some crossing over into what has become known as smooth jazz include Kenny G, Dave Koz,..." Acker Bilk might get a similar name check in the clarinet section...

The sentence doesn't really hurt anyone and I always appreciated that Berendt tried to keep that type of open mind... If the record store stocks it, then the book should explain it... Then again, I also wouldn't mind if the sentence was missing.

[clifford_thornton]

25 minutes ago, AndreyHenkin said:

Absolutely. Like it or not, the Windham Hill catalogue is worth discussing. And since so many jazz histories would ignore free jazz or European jazz or soul-jazz or electronics-driven jazz, why add to the problem? If you were teaching a class on heavy metal—which I do—you cannot ignore nu-metal even if it is as commercially-driven as smooth jazz.

yeah, Windham Hill is a whole 'nother story, since it was founded by the American steel string guitarist William Ackerman, who was inspired by John Fahey. The first release was given the catalog number C-1001, corresponding to the Takoma Records numbering system (he also reissued George Winston's solo piano debut, which was on Takoma, as well as then-new music by Takoma artist Robbie Basho). Windham Hill later became associated with "new age" but they really were doing something in an American folk-spiritualist tradition, musically, from the beginning.

[Rabshakeh]

5 minutes ago, JSngry said:

A book?

Surely you remember them. Like podcasts, but in text on pages made of mashed vegetable matter. Very cumbersome.