The "Smooth Jazz" Debate

Is Smooth Jazz...

 ...Jazz Music?

 

In 1964, United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, in his opinion regarding the alleged obscene nature of a French film called Les Amants (The Friends) in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, wrote the following statement:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

You may ask, what does a Supreme Court Justice's opinion regarding pornography have to do with jazz?

Let's imagine that the subject of this matter was not a movie, but rather a musical performance, and the court was reviewing whether or not the performance qualified as jazz music. One could imagine the justice saying:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I hear it, and the music involved in this case is not that (jazz)."

That in a nutshell sums up my feelings about music that I don't consider to be jazz music. I don't need to deeply analyze it, break it down, dissect it, etc. All I need to do is hear it, and I immediately know whether or not it is jazz music.

While I find that this works perfectly for me, I cannot say that it's good enough for others. Especially those who assert that the music of the likes of Kenny G or Boney James is actually jazz music.

One thing I've found peculiar about the people who have this position is that they usually have little knowledge of jazz music and its history. This is not to put myself on some pedestal of having some great knowledge over them, but in conversations, it becomes clear that they really don't. These are the people who will reveal the extent of their jazz knowledge with a superficial statement such as “oh yeah, I've heard of Dizzy—wasn't he the one with the puffy jaws?” or will do something like incorrectly calling Bird a trumpet player.

These people are not aware of the evolution of the music -- the various styles it has gone through, the various movements, the seminal figures in the music and why they were important. All they know about jazz is that it's something that their dad or uncle likes to listen to.

These are the people who, upon finding out that I am an avid listener of jazz, will say “have you heard that Hidden Beach recording where they do jazz renditions of hip-hop tunes?” and are incredulous when I tell them that it's not in my collection.

Or, they will mention a specific artist, maybe saxophonist Richard Elliott or pianist Brian Culbertson, and are surprised that as a jazz fan, I don't listen to them. I may respond with “no, but I do listen to Geri Allen—she's my favorite pianist” and they invariably say with a blank face “who?”

So maybe I'll explain who she is, and give some names of current-day artists that I do listen to—David Sanchez, Wynton Marsalis, David Murray—just to name a few. They'll acknowledge hearing of “Winston” Marsalis, and his brother “Brandon” and say they are pretty good, but then say “I see, you like that old time stuff.”

I'll say, yes, I do like older music very much, and point out that I listen to Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, Charles Mingus, Miles Davis and a bunch of others.

They'll assert that I listen to the OLD TIME stuff, but they listen to MODERN jazz: Dave Koz, Peter White, Fourplay, Pieces of a Dream, David Benoit, etc.

This is where it gets dicey. Over the years I have attempted to be delicate at this point, because more and more I try to avoid the inevitable argument that ensues. So I will say something like “don't get me wrong, I'm not saying those guys are no good, but it's not jazz music as far as I am concerned.”

Their comeback will be “well, you like the old stuff, but this is new jazz.” I'll respond with examples of new jazz: Roy Hargrove, Ravi Coltrane, Terence Blanchard or Gerald Clayton, and explain that they may THINK it's old stuff, but anyone who is aware and listens closely to their music would NOT confuse it with something recorded in the 50s or 60s.

“Well, if smooth jazz isn't jazz, what is it?” My response: “It's instrumental R&B” or “instrumental funk.”

This is where they become upset, because the feeling now is that I am dissing their music. In their mind, I am telling them that their music is not worthy of being called jazz music. They'll tell me that music can't be categorized or labeled (although ironically, that is exactly what they are doing). They'll say that jazz has so many forms and can't be pigeonholed – which is true to an extent – and that smooth jazz represents the “advancement” of the music.

I'll express that, to me, “smooth jazz” consists of some Lester Young or Johnny Hodges...yeah, those were some smooth cats! This is where their lack of jazz knowledge shows, as they have no idea who I am talking about.

This goes back and forth until we agree to disagree.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, why do I have my belief that smooth jazz is not jazz music?

This is my attempt, as a non-musician, to describe why what is now called "smooth jazz" is not a form of jazz music.

My feeling on the subject is that when one ponders what is or what is not jazz music, the evolution of the music must be taken into consideration.

What do I mean by that? Well, the earliest form of jazz as we know it had its genesis when slaves in New Orleans were allowed to gather in Congo Square and they began to integrate Western instrumentation with music dominated by African rhythms. This eventually evolved into what is known as Dixieland music, which featured mainly brass instruments (because that is what could be carried in a marching band) and was marked by a good bit of free improvisation.

Subsequently there was the emergence of Swing music, via the big bands of the likes of Fletcher Henderson, Count Basie, Jay McShann and Duke Ellington. This big band music served the function of being the dance music of the day, so "swing" was very important and highly emphasized.

Out of this swing era emerged many great soloists, such as Dexter Gordon, Coleman Hawkins, Charlie Parker, Lester Young, Dizzy Gillespie and Johnny Hodges. Some of these musicians, most prominently Dizzy and Bird, had a desire to be increasingly innovative and as a result they developed bebop, a music that was seen by some as more "cerebral", and less geared towards dancing. It was during this era that great virtuosic skills were emphasized, as it often demanded a fast, blazing pace. This era also introduced us to the composing genius of Thelonious Monk who within the genre of bebop, introduced his own unique style and sound.

Subsequent to the bebop era, a slower and softer style evolved, known as "cool", heralded by Miles Davis' "The Birth of The Cool" and epitomized by the most popular jazz recording of all-time, Davis' "Kind of Blue." It was probably during this time that white musicians had their greatest impact upon the music.

After this era there was the introduction of a harder-swinging and more soulful style of music, known as hard-bop and and later post-bop. This music "swung harder" than the cool jazz that preceded it and was also heavily influence by the "feel" of soul music. The music was definitely Afro-Centric and is best characterized by what is known as the "Blue Note Sound." Guys like Lee Morgan, Dexter Gordon, Johnny Griffin, Joe Henderson, Horace Silver, Art Blakey and Hank Mobley were among its prominent figures. Their goal, in my opinion, was to emphasize a swinging and soulful groove while maintaining the "cerebral" aspects of the music introduced during the bebop period.

Throughout these eras (beginning with bebop), Miles Davis was a prominent figure. His small band with Herbie Hancock and Wayne Shorter had an emphasis on deep, introspective solos, but was less influenced by the "soulful" aspects of hard bop. Around this same time, John Coltrane, who came to prominence in Monk's band and later on in Davis' cool-era band, branched out on his own, and like the music of Miles, became very introspective, eventually to a greater extent, and reached its zenith with his recording, "A Love Supreme." His music became, by some descriptions, increasingly self-indulgent and was marked by extremely long solos. Also was the development of "free jazz," it's most notable progenitor being Ornette Coleman, which had less emphasis on obvious rhythms and swing. Coltrane, an early collaborator with Coleman, also began playing a more "free" style of music along with guys like Eric Dolphy, and during this time were many questions about whether the music was actually "jazz" music.

Miles, with a constant desire to change, began to incorporate electric instrumentation and elements of rock music, which were introduced with his recording "Bitches Brew." Some say that this was the first "fusion" record and the music began to be less and less recognizable as jazz and more influenced by rock and roll.

Through this time, mainly during the 70s, there remained guys like Dexter Gordon, Woody Shaw, Art Blakey and Roland Kirk who continued to play what was called "straight-ahead jazz"--mainly hard or post-bop music. There also were a group of guys, such as David Murray, Arthur Blythe and Henry Threadgill, who were heavily influenced by free-jazz while often remaining within the jazz idiom.

The music at this point had mostly lost what remained of its popularity and became relatively obscure until the early 80s, when Wynton Marsalis took the music world by storm. There we saw the "young lions" who initially seemed to emulate the jazz of the 60s, but eventually modernized the music into the jazz that we know today, continually created by artists such as Terence Blanchard, Geri Allen, Roy Hargrove and Branford Marsalis.

WHY DID I WRITE THIS?

I wrote the above because hopefully it shows that music such as Boney James' or Wayman Tisdale's is not part of that evolution of jazz that I described above.

It did not evolve or progress out of any of the styles mentioned--Dixieland, swing, bebop, cool, hard-bop, post-bop, free-jazz, or straight-ahead.

Yes, it may borrow some elements such as improvisational solos, but in reality their music evolves out of R&B and funk. In essence, it is simply some soul-influenced music that is often mistaken for jazz simply because it is instrumental music that features solos.

Nonetheless, the smooth jazz advocates will no doubt disagree with me. I'd be interested in hearing from you and would like to see your reasons as to why you believe that I am wrong. Of course, I'd like to hear from those who agree as well!