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

[Brad]

1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:

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. 

Simply, no. 

[JSngry]

Teach people to play.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

At the risk of getting a bunch of shit for this, I'm still going to say it... if the stuff free-blowing players like Brötzmann play is "Jazz", then why shouldn't the stuff smooth players play be labeled similarly? Because let's be honest with ourselves - Smooth Jazz is a lot closer to Jazz than a lot of the really out stuff being labeled as such.

I used to think I knew what Jazz was. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago.

One of the albums that turned my head was The Bad Plus' "These Are The Vistas" with their cover of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit". If Jazz can include covers of grunge metal, anything goes, right?

[HutchFan]

1 minute ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

At the risk of getting a bunch of shit for this, I'm still going to say it... if the stuff free-blowing players like Brötzmann play is "Jazz", then why shouldn't the stuff smooth players play be labeled similarly? Because let's be honest with ourselves - Smooth Jazz is a lot closer to Jazz than a lot of the really out stuff being labeled as such.

I used to think I knew what Jazz was. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago.

One of the albums that turned my head was The Bad Plus' "These Are The Vistas" with their cover of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit". If Jazz can include covers of grunge metal, anything goes, right?

You'll get no guff from me on that.

 

[ghost of miles]

1 hour ago, Rabshakeh said:

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. 

I think such a revival has already been bubbling for the past few years--Concord now markets some of its new jazz releases as smooth jazz. You could even go all the way back to the 2012 release of Robert Glasper's Black Radio album as a starting point. 

[clifford_thornton]

37 minutes ago, Kevin Bresnahan said:

At the risk of getting a bunch of shit for this, I'm still going to say it... if the stuff free-blowing players like Brötzmann play is "Jazz", then why shouldn't the stuff smooth players play be labeled similarly? Because let's be honest with ourselves - Smooth Jazz is a lot closer to Jazz than a lot of the really out stuff being labeled as such.

I used to think I knew what Jazz was. I stopped trying to figure it out a long time ago.

One of the albums that turned my head was The Bad Plus' "These Are The Vistas" with their cover of Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit". If Jazz can include covers of grunge metal, anything goes, right?

I would agree.

[JSngry]

All of this is (even more) academic masturbation  Learning about sound just by reading about it? Seriously?  That's not teaching, that's preaching. And of course, here comes the collection plate 

We've had harm enough already.

[JSngry]

There's at least a week or two or more of good lessons in connecting dots from something like this:

But this is about sounds (plurals) not reading words 

[HutchFan]

13 minutes ago, JSngry said:

All of this is (even more) academic masturbation  Learning about sound just by reading about it? Seriously?  That's not teaching, that's preaching. And of course, here comes the collection plate 

We've had harm enough already.

I strongly disagree.  I think the premise of this thread is an interesting, worthy topic of discussion. 

Plenty of books have influenced my listening -- if only by pointing out music that's worth exploring. 

Incidentally, this forum serves the exact same function, and making a recommendation is precisely what you've just done above.  Does that qualify as "masturbation"?  I don't think it does.

 

[JSngry]

Yes it does.

[T.D.]

Long ago (late '80s-early '90s), I occasionally listened to a "Smooth Jazz" radio station, CD101.9 in NYC. Worked as background music.

I got the impression that "Smooth Jazz" as a genre has been pretty much absorbed into the broader genre of "Adult Contemporary". Not sure what AC exactly is, though...seems to have overtones of background/bedroom music.

I can see a book chapter or section on smooth jazz. I'd actually be interested (to a degree) in its history and development.

Edited 2 hours ago by T.D.

[JSngry]

5 minutes ago, T.D. said:

I can see a book chapter or section on smooth jazz. I'd actually be interested (to a degree) in its history and development.

How far back do you want to go?

There's a lot of dots to be connected. There will be R&B, cultural studies, record industry profiles, and oh by the way, jazz.

Yours Truly,

Dr. Hankly Wankerston

 

 

[Rabshakeh]

Or a seminar or podcast or teaching session or whatever. The point is do you direct people to it or not. And not the roots (which I think we all agree on); the fruit. Commercial jazzes 1977 - 1993 or whatever. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Rabshakeh

[JSngry]

I don't think we all do agree on the roots and therefore not the fruits.

Hell, I don't think there's agreement on why it was popular, because there was not a single "type"  of fan, just as there was not one single type of product 

[T.D.]

49 minutes ago, JSngry said:

How far back do you want to go?

There's a lot of dots to be connected. There will be R&B, cultural studies, record industry profiles, and oh by the way, jazz.

Yours Truly,

Dr. Hankly Wankerston

 

 

Hey, I'm warmed up. I spend time on a cryptic crossword forum that has competitions to write cryptic clues for a given word.

Today's word was TAEKWONDO and I managed to work in WANKED [Wanked too vigorously for kicks (9)] before seeing this thread.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

2 hours ago, T.D. said:

Long ago (late '80s-early '90s), I occasionally listened to a "Smooth Jazz" radio station, CD101.9 in NYC. Worked as background music.

I got the impression that "Smooth Jazz" as a genre has been pretty much absorbed into the broader genre of "Adult Contemporary". Not sure what AC exactly is, though...seems to have overtones of background/bedroom music.

I can see a book chapter or section on smooth jazz. I'd actually be interested (to a degree) in its history and development.

Here's one of my early favorite "Smooth Jazz" dates.