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

[Rabshakeh]

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 jazz most of us enjoy. 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. 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. 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 three 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 retrospective reissues, with its black hole effect). 

All of this is without prejudice to the fact that, as 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 (Winelight is great. Sanborn was good at times. I like Whalum) but I don't think it was a particularly fruitful period for jazz, artistically. 

In due course this view may become old fashioned, just as 1950s views of Jimmy Smith or the criticisms of modal jazz look old fashioned. But I am not really all that sure and any revival of interest in this area would need to take an unexpected form, in my view. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Rabshakeh

[Big Beat Steve]

Agreed that the borderline areas of what is or isn't jazz, such as the genres you mention, ought to be included at least in passing in any open-minded discussion or historical overview of jazz. As to the depth of coverage, YMMV. 

However, among the genres you mention, it would be useful to define "R&B" a bit more exactly. I have a hunch what you mean is not what I understand to be R&B in the first place (stylistically speaking, without any real limitations to its timeframe): post-Swing era, mostly pre-Rock'n'Roll and clearly pre-Soul Black Music of the danceable, popular variety and as a subcategory of Blues. I.e. broadly in the way that Tad Richards argues for its recognition as part of jazz in his "Jazz With a Beat" book.
I realize R&B is used in different, more recent meanings too so it would be useful to clarifly which is which in any given context. 

As for how and when the appreciation of certain styles of jazz or artists may change over time, a word on this statement of yours:

36 minutes ago, Rabshakeh said:

In due course this view may become old fashioned, just as 1950s views of Jimmy Smith or the criticisms of modal jazz look old fashioned. 

You may be surprised to learn that Hugues Panassié clearly and outspokenly praised the recordings of Jimmy Smith in his publications of the 50s and early 60s! Yes, him, the eternal "moldy fig" and bebop hater! 
So would this "seal of approval" have devalued, in turn, Jimmy Smith in the opinions of all-out modernists, I wonder?  

Edited 1 hour ago by Big Beat Steve

[Rabshakeh]

25 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

However, among the genres you mention, it would be useful to define "R&B" a bit more exactly. I have a hunch what you mean is not what I understand to be R&B in the first place (stylistically speaking, without any real limitations to its timeframe): post-Swing era, mostly pre-Rock'n'Roll and clearly pre-Soul Black Music of the danceable, popular variety and as a subcategory of Blues. I.e. broadly in the way that Tad Richards argues for its recognition as part of jazz in his "Jazz With a Beat" book.
I realize R&B is used in different, more recent meanings too so it would be useful to clarifly which is which in any given context. 

I definitely do mean that. Big Jim McNeely etc. I think it is really essential to a deep knowledge of Jazz to appreciate the way that it, to some extent, represents an industry-led bifurcation of the African American music that had existed up to that point. But at the same time I wouldn't necessarily give it a chapter in a jazz book, although I would want it covered as part of swing in the 1940s or the phenomenon of rise of the tenor player. 

[Big Beat Steve]

O.K., so we largely agree there.